Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 May], That the Bill be now read a Third time.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 22 June.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 22 June.

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To he read a Second time on Thursday 22 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Teenage Crime

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Conservative Family Campaign regarding teenage crime.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I have received two letters from the Conservative Family Campaign about young people's involvement in crime. I greatly welcome the growing interest in the role of the family in steering young children away from crime. The fact that the peak age for offending in this country is 15 underscores the truth that the family is our country's first line of defence. Parents and teachers have a clear responsibility to instil into children habits of self-discipline and respect for others.

Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to respond positively to the family campaign and say what action he will take in the light of its suggestions and recommendations? In so doing, will he welcome the emphasis that the family campaign puts upon the responsibility of parents in an age when we hear all too much about individuals' rights? Will he furthermore take the opportunity to confirm the Government's commitment to parents and to the concept of the family unit?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, and I have tried to do that in my earlier answer and on several other occasions. I agree with my hon. Friend. As regards his first point, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), will be receiving leaders of the campaign shortly to go through with them the specific proposals that they have made.

Mr. Marlow: As the majority of teenage crime arises from bravado, should not retribution be swift, painful and humiliating? Could the Government look again at the possibility of introducing corporal punishment, or alternatively some humiliating punishment like the stocks in modern guise?

Mr. Hurd: The House considered the matter not long ago. I remember the debate and I remember its conclusion. If the matter were put to the House again, I am not sure that it would reach a different conclusion. It is worth noting that as a result of the efforts that have been made the number of juveniles sentenced or cautioned has fallen substantially from 170,000 in 1984 to 140,000 in 1987.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is often boredom rather than bravado which leads young people into mischief and crime? Is it not about time that he talked not just to Conservative party committees but to British local authorities which desperately want to supply leisure facilities and the creative leisure that the French are so much better at providing? Is it not about time that we took on an Eté Jeunes programme, which the French have and which has been so successful in reducing crime in French inner cities?

Mr. Hurd: If the hon. Gentleman went up and down the country he would find a number of different organisations


in Staffordshire and Humberside, for instance, where the police are putting into effect on the ground precisely the schemes that he wishes to encourage. That is already going on and I hope that the Labour party and Labour local authorities will do their best to encourage it.

Television Licences

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were fined for non-payment of television licence fees in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): The following information has been supplied by the national TV licence records office and relates to the number of convictions in each of the financial years 1 April to 31 March:



Number


1984–85
110,042


1985–86
123,122


1986–87
174,509


1987–88
158,182


1988–89
172,604

Mr. Thurnham: Bolton magistrates court tells me that these are by far the most miserable of all the fines that it has to collect as 60 per cent. of those fined are female, many of them single mothers with young children, and there are known cases of women having to resort to prostitution to pay their fines. Is it not high time that my hon. Friend brought in a subscription pay-as-you-view revenue system for the BBC instead of listening to Mr. Hussey saying that people like paying their licence fees to fund a grossly overstaffed BBC?

Mr. Renton: I listened with care to my hon. Friend. We accept that people with limited means may find it hard to pay the BBC licence fee. For that reason, we are doing two things. We are encouraging the BBC to develop other streams of income—for example, through subscription—and, from this September, we will introduce a pay-as-you-go instalment scheme. A successful pilot scheme has been run and, as from September, it will be possible gradually throughout the country for the television licence fee to be paid quarterly.

Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that many pensioners are caught up in this problem? The Government should be ashamed of themselves? [Interruption.] The Tories may laugh, but this is a serious matter for pensioners. We have asked regularly for all pensioners to be treated the same and to have a £5 television licence instead of the increase that the Government have introduced. Why do we not have fairness so that pensioners can keep themselves out of court and enjoy their later days? The Government are unfair to the elderly. Let us have the Minister at the Dispatch box saying that he will come my way.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the Labour party policy review with the precise attention that I would have expected. The review says that the BBC licence fee is the core of the BBC's income for the future. To do as the hon. Gentleman suggests would remove £400 million from the BBC. The only way to recoup that would

be to put up the licence fee by about half for everyone else. The hon. Gentleman has not thought his argument through, but that is no surprise.

Mr. Redwood: Does the Minister think that under the pressure of satellite broadcasting and commercial television the BBC's audience share might be so low that this method of financing would no longer be appropriate?

Mr. Renton: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt that as we are giving our blessing to a new terrestrial channel—Channel 5—to be financed by advertising and subscription, and in view of the number of satellite channels that are coming and the increasing success of cable, the BBC in its forward planning for the 1990s will be thinking carefully about what it should do if its audience share falls in the way suggested by my hon. Friend so that the continuance of the licence fee would be an intolerable burden on many households who are willing to look at channels other than the BBC.

Police (Leicestershire)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning police provision in Leicestershire.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Twenty seven extra police posts were approved for Leicestershire in April so that a total of 54 have been approved since May 1979. In addition, some 130 police officers have been returned to operational duties as a result of civilianisation and other efficiency measures.
The police authority has applied for my right hon. Friend's approval of 75 more posts in 1990–91. Our aim is to announce decisions on this, and applications from other authorities, towards the end of this year.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that one of the few areas in which the Members of Parliament for Leicestershire agree, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), is that we do not have nearly enough police, that the level of crime, which has doubled since the Conservatives came to office, is insupportable, and that it was wrong to turn down the applications of two successive chief constables for a considerable increase in the number of policemen? Is he aware that all Members of Parliament for the area have expressed in the House their view that it is not safe for people to go out at night in parts of Leicester because there are not enough policemen on the beat and that the Government's continued refusal to accept the recommendations of chief constables is unworthy and wrong?

Mr. Hogg: I have good news for Leicestershire. As I have said, we have increased police posts by 54, a process of civilianisation has freed 130 officers for operational duties and that process is continuing. There is more good news. In 1978–79 expenditure on the Leicestershire constabulary was £15·65 million. In the current year it is £57 million—a huge increase. There is more good news. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have noticed that in 1988 there was a fall of 9·3 per cent. in sexual offences and 5·7 per cent. in burglaries. All that is good news and it is a great pity that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not point out those facts.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the recent announcement of an increase in police for Leicestershire has been widely welcomed, although it may not be an ideal figure? Will my hon. Friend congratulate the force on the tremendous strides that it has taken towards civilianisation? Is it not a fact that spending on police in England and Wales has been higher than spending on almost any other area of government during this Administration?

Mr Hogg: As one would expect from my hon. Friend, he has given a comprehensive summary of the position. I am sure that the House would like to know that spending this year, compared with the last year of the Labour Government, is 54·9 per cent. up in real terms—a huge increase. We never hear any mention of that from the empty Opposition Benches.
As regards the efficiency of the Leicestershire constabulary, it is a great pity that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) did not draw attention to its exceptionally high clear-up rate—42·8 per cent., compared with 35·2 per cent. in England and Wales. I am also glad to say that the county has a much lower crime rate of 5,712 per 100,000 of population, compared with 7,396 in England and Wales, excluding the City and Metropolitan police.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall make slow progress if we have long answers.

Child Crime (Parental Responsibility)

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking steps to make parents responsible for the criminal activity of their children.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The great majority of the 100 or so letters that we have received in the past few months support the idea. Many specific provisions already existing in law are, however, little used. For example, the power to impose a curfew on juvenile offenders was used by the courts on only eight occasions in 1986 and 1987.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that his ideas for greater parental involvement in the consequences of children offending has received widespread acclaim throughout Britain? Is it not a tragedy, however, that the powers of curfew have been so seldom used? Will my hon. Friend comment on the suggestion that that is because some probation officers have refused to co-operate in the implementation of such orders?

Mr. Patten: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I greatly welcome the support in the majority of the correspondence that the Home Office has received for our radical and far-reaching new ideas to deal with offending by children. I am advised that there have been problems with some probation officers about co-operating with the courts. In 1985, the National Association of Probation Officers made it its policy not to co-operate with the courts in enforcing and supervising supervision orders. That is extraordinary because probation officers are officers of the court. If they will not fulfil their responsibilities, we may have to look for others who will.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that attempting to make parents somehow responsible for the criminal activities of their children is entirely superficial and misses the point? Is he further aware that there has been a most alarming upsurge in crime by adolescents in the United States in recent years and that within five to 10 years a similar situation will develop here because Britain is following closely the social and economic policies pursued in the United States? Should not the Minister go for a far deeper study of the causes of crime by adolescents in Britain rather than grasping at the chimeras offered by Conservative Members?

Mr. Patten: During the past year the ministerial group on crime prevention—on which 13 different Government Departments are represented—has been conducting an in-depth study of the causes of crime among children and young people. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is absolutely right that we must search for those causes. I do not believe, however, that the search would be aided by simply dismissing parental responsibility for the behaviour of children as something of no importance. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the family is the first line of defence against crime by children.
I do not believe that on every occasion trends in the United States are followed 10 or 15 years later in this country. In the past 10 years we have seen a welcome, though slight, reduction in juvenile crime. What alarms my right hon. Friend and myself is that the peak age for offending remains at 15. We are determined to do something about that.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind that many young children are drawn into crime as a result of addiction to amusement-with-prizes machines in arcades and that many parents, responsible and irresponsible, are involved in such distressing cases, will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider my Bill, which has support on both sides of the House and would give discretion to local authorities to ban under-16s from amusement arcades?

Mr. Patten: I know of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in this important issue and of the way in which he has dealt with it in the proposals that he has put to Ministers and in his Bill. He is a model of how such a campaign should be conducted. We believe, however, that we should respond to the need for change in the criminal justice system when, to borrow my hon. Friend's phrase, there is clear evidence of a link between addiction and criminality. Independent research carried out by the Home Office's internationally renowned research and planning unit, which is independent in the way in which it conducts its business, supported by the Gaming Board for Great Britain, produced no evidence of such a link. If my hon. Friend and those who support him in his campaign can come forward with firm evidence we shall, of course, reconsider the issue.

Mr. Heffer: May I ask the Minister to take more seriously the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) about the reasons for child crime? Surely the suggestion that parents are responsible for all the criminal activity of their children is not a serious one, although it is a populist demand on the part of some Conservative Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"]. There are many Members of Parliament whose


children have committed criminal activities. We all know of next-door neighbours and so on whose children have carried out criminal acts. Parents are in no way responsible.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is a superficial suggestion.

Mr. Heffer: Exactly. Of course there is a connection between parents and their children's criminal activity up to a point, but it is a minor one. We must consider this issue much more carefully. I ask the Minister to ignore totally the irresponsible and populist demands that have been made by Conservative Members.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman, with his well-known upholding of Christian values about which he has told this House on many occasions since I have been here, should feel that parents have no responsibility for their children. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, it is critically important to appreciate that the first and best line of defence against offending not just by juveniles, but by children under 10 who commit some 6,000 offences each year, are the parents. I believe that the country appreciates that. I entirely accept that a thuggish, 16-year-old young man may be difficult for a single parent to control, but I do not accept that the parent of an eight, nine or 10-year-old should be exonerated from providing care and attention.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making extremely slow progress. I ask for brief questions and briefer answers to them.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My hon. Friend has already referred to the fact that the peak age for criminal activity is school age. Much of that criminal activity takes place during school hours. Will my hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to get schools to check that pupils are attending on a lesson basis rather than on a half-day basis and to ensure that education authorities speed up the process of taking parents to court when children are truanting? The court process should also be speeded up so that it no longer takes between 18 months and two years to bring a truanting child and his parents to court.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend makes three important points. Such discussions have taken place between my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science in recent months. In addition, we are delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked the National Curriculum Council to consider the inclusion of lessons on parenthood and responsibility in the national curriculum. That is an important suggestion.

Cross Report

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any conclusions have yet been reached following the Cross report; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: Lord Cross delivered his arbitration on matters of dispute between the Horserace Betting Levy

Board and the Horserace Totalisator Board in 1979. We have had no reason to question the acceptance of the arbitration by both boards since then.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will realise that 10 years of peace are about to be broken. The proliferation of tote facilities at race courses is now seriously jeopardising on-course bookmakers. Ahead of privatisation, in the not-too-distant future, that proliferation could well result in a problem landing on my hon. Friend's doorstep. I ask him, therefore, to look seriously at the present acceleration in the siting of tote facilities at race courses which is driving away small bookmakers.

Mr. Patten: I have enjoyed more or less a decade of detente with my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) and I hope that hostilities are not about to break out over this of all issues, which we have discussed on several occasions in a variety of settings over the years.
We look to the levy board for advice on this issue, but we have had no such advice from it. However, I believe that the representative bookmakers association has written to the chairman of the levy board, Sir Ian Trethowan, about this and we await his views with interest.

Crime (Greater Manchester)

Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department is making towards reducing the level of crime in the Greater Manchester area.

Mr. Hurd: In the first quarter of 1989, offences recorded by the Greater Manchester police fell by 4·5 per cent. compared with the same period in 1988. The two largest categories—burglary and theft, and handling stolen goods —fell by 14·6 per cent. and 3·1 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Sumberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bury is one of the safest places to live in Greater Manchester, with a fall in recorded crime of 4·5 per cent. compared with last year's figures? Will he join me in saluting that achievement and in thanking the local police, who are obviously part of it, together with all those in the community who are promoting greater involvement—there are now 320 home watch schemes—and the local paper, the Bury Times, which has made the public aware of the greater dangers which face the elderly in particular?

Mr. Hurd: I know that Bury, Bolton and several of the old Lancashire towns within the Greater Manchester police area have made great progress and have forged ahead. It is good news that there are now 8,000 home watch schemes in that police area. There must be some connection—a close connection I believe—between all the efforts that my hon. Friend describes and the fall in total recorded crime in the area not just in the first quarter of this year, but with last year's decrease of 8 per cent. compared with 1987.

Mrs. Peacock: I hope that when looking at the great progress that has been made in the Greater Manchester area my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded to go along the lines recently suggested especially in urging parents not to be responsible for their children's criminal


activities. Does he agree that it is absolute nonsense not to hold parents responsible? I hope that my right hon. Friend will make that positive move in the rest of his work.

Mr. Hurd: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Exchanges earlier this afternoon have shown the wide interest and support for the general principle that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has floated.

Drink-related Crime

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made any recent studies of methods used in the United States of America in combating drink-related crime; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Experience internationally—the failures as well as the successes—is taken into account as we work out policy. We have done a lot to tackle alcohol misuse here through crime prevention. We have also strengthened the powers of licensing justices and the law on sales to under-age drinkers, and I have approved experimental byelaws in seven areas to ban the consumption of alcohol in public places.

Mr. Atkinson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in response to rising drink-related crime among young people, every American state has now raised its legal drinking age to 21? Will he ensure that the lessons of that experience will be considered not only by his Department but by the ministerial group on alcohol misuse, which is chaired by our right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council?

Mr. Hurd: I believe that my hon. Friend is right in saying that all the American states have raised the legal drinking age to 21, and I gather that a lively debate about that degree of prohibition is still in progress. I would rather ensure that our own law, under which the legal drinking age is 18, is enforced effectively, and that magistrates and police are reminded of the powers that they already have to deal with disorderly pubs or places where under-age drinking occurs. I agree, however, that we must keep an eye on what happens in the United States as a result of the change.

Mr. Sheerman: The Home Secretary knows that the work of his own research unit shows that disorder and drunkenness go together, not so much in the rural regions as in the non-metropolitan areas. That research was invaluable in pinpointing the sites of such disorder. In the light of what it has shown, will the Home Secretary do two things? First, will he talk to the traditional friends of the Conservative party—the brewers—about their advertising and about helping to enforce our existing drinking laws? Secondly, may I again ask the right hon. Gentleman to give local authorities and others involved in youth work the resources to provide young people with creative leisure, which—whatever the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) may say—they do not enjoy at present?

Mr. Hurd: Of course my right hon. Friend the Lord President, as chairman of the ministerial group, is constantly in touch with the drinks industry, and we co-operate closely with the industry in such matters. The

link between drinking and disorder which the hon. Gentleman has accurately described is contrary to the industry's interests, so it is naturally on our side.
I repeat what I said before: a mass of schemes exist to provide leisure facilities, and I do not think that young people in this country have ever had more such facilities. The difficulty is that expectations of excitement are also much greater than they have ever been. The matter cannot be dealt with just as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Barry Field: Can my right hon. Friend reassure hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as the brewing industry, that one of the American methods that he will not be studying is prohibition?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed, Sir.

Licensing Laws

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State For the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce further legislation to liberalise the licensing laws in England.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: No, Sir, but we shall keep the position under review.

Mr. Knox: Following the success of the recent legislation, does my hon. Friend consider that there is a case for taking modest steps towards further liberalisation in the near future?

Mr. Hogg: When we have seen such a case, we have taken steps. We do not see a case for further steps at present.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister agree that what is needed now is not a further liberalisation of the licensing laws, but a tightening up of efforts to stop people who have been drinking in licensing hours from driving on our roads? Instead of introducing more time in which people can drink, should not more steps be taken to prevent them from endangering the lives of others and killing on the roads after drinking?

Mr. Hogg: That is a very general point, and of course it is correct as far as it goes.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend taking steps to establish from the police the exact results of the liberalisation of licensing laws? Is he aware that—certainly in the south-west, and in particular in my constituency, where there have been a few moments of disorder at closing time in the past—the liberalising of licensing hours has been of enormous benefit, not only to people who have indulged in recreational drinking but to the police? Will he assure the House that he will report on the police attitude to the liberalisation that has already taken place?

Mr. Hogg: The police attitude has been broadly favourable and along the lines outlined by my hon. Friend. That is also the feeling of the justices, in so far as they are able to make an assessment at present. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys will be conducting a survery of alcohol consumption and drinking patterns for the Department of Health in the autumn against which to measure the effects of longer opening hours, and I imagine that a summary of its conclusions will be made available to the House in due course.

Crack

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives he has taken recently to prevent imports of the drug crack; to what extent organised crime is involved in crack imports; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: I take very seriously indeed the threat posed by cocaine and its derivative crack, not only to this country but to the whole of Europe. That is why I called the meeting last month of the Council of Europe's drug co-operation group, the Pompidou group.
The initiatives we have taken include the provision of £1·8 million of drug-related help to Latin American countries over the past three years; posting drug liaison officers to countries on the cocaine trafficking routes; working hard to develop international agreements and bilateral agreements to confiscate the assets of convicted drug traffickers; setting up Customs teams to combat cocaine smuggling; and calling an international conference next year to look at reducing the demand for drugs and, in particular, for cocaine.

Mr. Tredinnick: I welcome that reply. Does my right hon. Friend agree that fighting organised crime before it gets a grip on Britain, particularly from the point of veiw of crack, is of the highest possible priority and that we may have to invest now to avoid serious outbreaks of crime in the future? Is he aware that hon. Members who were in Newark, New Jersey last year during the presidential election campaign were told that they should not leave the hotel for fear of being attacked by crack-crazed youngsters aged under 16?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Under-Secretary, who is chairman of the ministerial group on drug misuse, has visited the United States even more recently. All the information that he has come back with and everything that we have heard directly from the enforcement agencies in America confirms the anxiety that my hon. Friend voices. That is why we are taking such energetic action in time.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Home Secretary aware that this is yet another example of seeing what was happening in the United States five years ago and projecting it on here? I asked a parliamentary question about crack some four years ago—[Interruption.] I am sorry that Conservative Members seem to think that this is a flippant subject. The Home Secretary must make sure that far more study of the problem takes place in the United States to anticipate what will happen in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that instead of making cuts in the number of Customs and Excise officers, he should increase the numbers of enforcement officers at the ports of entry to try to intercept this evil drug before it takes over our youth?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the number of Customs officers employed in this work—and he is right about their importance—has been substantially increased.

Mr. Wheeler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Home Affairs Committee will be visiting Washington and the United States next week to investigate this very subject. The members of that committee dare to go where others fear to tread, to see for themselves how the drugs menace has impacted on American society. Does my right

hon. Friend agree that our defences in this country are well prepared at airports and seaports, that our police and Customs are working well together and that while so far the seizures of crack have been low, we are preparing a plan to deal with the future?

Mr. Hurd: That is exactly the position. We must, and we do, keep in touch with experience in the United States. Our defences must be in advance, beyond our shores, in America and in Europe on the cocaine and heroin smuggling routes. They must be at our ports and airports, and that is important in the discussion of 1992. They must be in our cities, with our police, and they must be in our schools and in our homes in persuading parents and children that these are routes not to happiness and power but to disgrace and misery.

Prison Building

Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's prison building programme.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Eight new prisons have been opened since 1985, seven are under construction and one, which has been converted from existing buildings at Banstead in Surrey, will open shortly. Five more are planned to start on site this year, and eight are at various stages of planning and design. The building programme also covers the expansion and improvement of existing establishments. By the end of this year nearly 2,000 new places will have been added to existing establishments in a period of less then two years. By the mid-1990s we will have added about 25,000 places to the system. The prison department directorate of works has also begun a five-year programme to provide over 6,500 cells with access to sanitation in addition to its ongoing programme of maintenance, improvement and renovation.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently received representations, which I forwarded to him, from some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller)? They included one from a former prison chaplain who preaches at my local parish church and they concerned the serious problem of overcrowding in prisons. Does my hon. Friend recognise that such overcrowding is not tolerable in a civilised country such as we consider ours to be? The figures that he has given in his answer are most welcome. Will he continue these operations and consider alternatives to imprisonment for those convicted, and particularly for those on remand?

Mr. Hogg: There are two important points here. Yes, there is overcrowding in the prison system, but it is very confined. There are about 50,000 people in the prison system, and 20,000 of them in the local and remand centres are overcrowded. The balance of 30,000 are not in any sense overcrowded in the circumstances in which they are living. The overcrowding of the 20,000 is a serious matter, but we have a whole range of policies designed to address that problem. Most specifically, we are building new places —25,000 between 1979 and the mid-1990s. I hope that we will have substantially eradicated the problem by the mid-1990s.

Mr. Harry Greenway: While congratulating my hon. Friend on the substantial number of new places in prisons, may I ask him if he will do all that he can to expand prison education, especially for people on remand, some of whom spend three years on remand and are then not convicted of anything? Secondly, is he not concerned about the large number of people in prison dormitories? Is not that a threat to security?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend raises a number of matters. I agree that some people have been on remand for far too long and we are taking urgent measures to reduce the number. My hon. Friend is right about dormitories. Broadly speaking, they are not a secure way of keeping prisoners and we are in the process of eliminating them. We are seeking to improve the provision of education in the prisons, and I am glad to say that the fresh start procedures that we put in place have greatly enhanced the provision of education in the prison system.

Crime Prevention (Norfolk)

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to encourage crime prevention in Norfolk; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his attendance and on his question. The answer to his question is that crime reduction forms part of a strategy that applies to all of England and Wales. Police manpower and resources have been substantially increased, crime concern was launched with Government support in May 1988 to stimulate support and develop local crime prevention activity, and the largest-ever crime prevention publicity campaign was launched last year. My right hon. Friend approved a further 24 police posts for the Norfolk force from 1 April. We give encouragement to the growth and development of neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels, and I am pleased to note that there are now 472 neighbourhood watch schemes in Norfolk, together with five crime prevention panels and three junior crime prevention panels.

Mr. Thompson: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the police and all others in Norfolk who were involved in the very encouraging recent reduction in crime in that area and in Norwich? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there has been a serious and continuing increase in violent crime? Will he do all that he can in discussions with the police and others in Norfolk to take further action to deal with that disturbing trend?

Mr. Patten: I certainly congratulate the Norfolk constabulary on its sterling efforts to reduce crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced a lot of very original ideas and thinking about how to reduce violent crime. Indeed, most of my hon. Friends recognise that all the original thinking about crime prevention is coming from these Benches. Nothing is coming from the Opposition Benches and in particular from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who did not ask a question the last time we had Home Office questions and has not got on his feet once during this session either.

Crime (Humberside)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest available figures for the number of criminal offences recorded by police as having been committed in Humberside; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Patten: In 1988 the Humberside police recorded 85,113 notifiable offences. This was a very welcome 4 per cent. fall from the previous year's figures.

Mr. Cran: Is my hon. Friend aware that the only category of crime that increased on Humberside last year was violence related to the consumption of alcohol? That being the case, will his Department encourage a whole range of schemes to tackle the problem of under-age drinking, which is endemic in many parts of this country?

Mr. Patten: We will certainly do all we possibly can and the whole Government, and I am sure the whole Conservative party, will support the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and his ministerial group on this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to remind people of the importance of today's Euro-elections? Will she note the growing support by people in Northern Ireland for the Conservative party? Today they will have a chance to vote for Dr. Laurence Kennedy, our first-ever Conservative Euro-candidate in Ulster? Will she include him in her greetings to our candidates?

The Prime Minister: I have already sent the message of greeting and support which my hon. Friend seeks to our Euro-candidates. I agree that it is a very important election and a very important day and I hope that people will turn out in strength and vote. I note what my hon. Friend says about matters in Northern Ireland. I know her strong views about parties there, and I note what she says.

Mr. Kinnock: Why cannot the Prime Minister simply answer yes to the question, "Is the Chancellor going to retain his job after the forthcoming reshuffle?"

The Prime Minister: I answer on precisely what the Chancellor said on Wednesday of last week in the economic debate. The Chancellor set out the Government's position clearly and in some detail. he said:
Our overriding
—I repeat "overriding"—
objective is to bring inflation back down.
We shall not be diverted from that course.

Mr. Kinnock: Is that "gladly, joyfully, generously, fully, fully, fully" a refusal to guarantee the future of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister: I repeat what I said last week. If the right hon. Gentleman would like a little longer lecture I will read out the entire speech.

Sir Peter Tapsell: While the Leader of the Opposition regards all this as a joke, is it not about time that we all began to take the sterling situation rather seriously and that the Leader of the Opposition ceased to try twice a week to talk sterling down?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Leader of the Opposition is normally trying to help the speculators and talks sterling down in the most unBritish way.

Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Ms. Primarolo: Will the Prime Minister confirm that her policy of keeping interest rates as high as necessary for as long as necessary means that she will be prepared to tolerate a further increase in mortgage interest rates?

The Prime Minister: I repeat what the Chancellor said in his most excellent speech in the economic debate giving his policy very fully. He set out the Government's position and said:
Our overriding
—I repeat "overriding"—
objective is to bring inflation back down.
The Chancellor said:
the policies that have successfully brought inflation down in the past … will do so again."—[Official Report, 7 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 264.]
We have had an extremely successful economic policy.

Mrs. Peacock: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's main priority is to reduce inflation? Will she also condemn members of the Opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, for continually trying to talk the pound down?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I confirm once again that that is the Government's overriding priority, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the economic debate. We shall not be deflected from that course of action. I agree that the Opposition try to talk down the pound, which is a great tragedy.

Mr. Shore: Apart from the obvious and damaging effect that high interest rates have on the competitiveness of British industry, is it not a fact that the main effect of high interest rates, far from reducing aggregate demand, is simply to redistribute demand away from hard-pressed first-time mortgagors and other borrowers to people who are savers and creditors? If that is so, is this not an extremely unfair and ineffective way to reduce demand and counter inflation?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that inflation is a monetary phenomenon, and short-term interest rates are the main instrument for dealing with it.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those both inside and outside Parliament who continually delight in rubbishing the achievements of this country fail to grasp the inherent strength of the British economy? Do we not now have a record level of new job creation in Europe, enjoy a record high standard of living, and have a record repayment of the debts piled up by the Labour party when it last had muddled control of our economy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. We have a record high standard of living and a record high standard of social services.

Mr. Tony Banks: And inflation.

The Prime Minister: No, the Labour party has the record on inflation this century, with a rate of 27 per cent. As well as the record high standards of living and of social services, we have record repayment of debt, and record standards of investment in manufacturing industry and of business investment. I could go on with record after record of good things for the British people—an excellent record.

Dr. Kim Howells: How do the Government intend to clean up our rivers and beaches if they refuse to give the National Rivers Authority the powers to prosecute the regional water companies after they have been privatised?

The Prime Minister: Both our rivers and our beaches are being cleaned up, contrary to what happened during the time of the Labour Government. The directive from Europe came out in 1975, and it asked Governments to identify beaches that did not come up to standard. By 1979, the Labour Government had not identified one. It was left to us to identify them all. We have done so. Two thirds have already been dealt with and the other one third will soon be dealt with. As to rivers, 95 per cent. are classified, on European standards, as good or fair, which is the best record in the Community.

European Commission

Mr. Leigh: To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the European Commission.

The Prime Minister: I receive a number of such representations.

Mr. Leigh: Whatever else divides the two major parties, is not one thing crystal clear, and comes out in representations concerning the European Community? It is that the overwhelming majority of the House insists that this House, representing the people as it does, must retain its untrammelled power over taxation. Were we to subscribe to a central European bank or a common currency, the House would lose the right, uniquely sustained over many centuries, democratically to control


economic policy. Is that not why public opinion in this country is so different from that in other parts of the Community?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the ability to run monetary, economic and fiscal policy lies at the heart of what constitutes a sovereign state. I very much agree with him that the rights and powers of national Governments and Parliaments in these matters must be preserved. That is what this Parliament is for. We must resist the constant centralising tendency of the European Community.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the House has made representations to the Government about the Commission's proposals for all-European television rules? is she aware also that at 3 am on Tuesday the House debated those rules, when it became clear that the decision whether a certain pornographic television channel which is transmitted in a member state, which I shall not name, becomes a legal transmission in Britain will be made by a majority vote? When the Prime Minister placed the Single European Act before the House, was she misled by others about its possible effects and potential? Was the right hon. Lady misled by the Commission or the Foreign Office, or is there some other explanation for this extraordinary state of affairs?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there is nothing misleading about the Single European Act. Greater majority voting in some spheres was clearly on the face of the Act, and he knows that. There is a question about interpretation with regard to one or two matters. Unanimous voting on certain matters was also clearly on the face of the Act. The hon. Gentleman knows that full well.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have done more than any other to try to raise television quality standards, and hitherto we have had precious little help from the Opposition in so doing.

Sir Ian Lloyd: On 27 June nearly 40 years ago, the then Leader of the Opposition, in his matchless prose, made a declaration on behalf of the Conservative and Liberal parties that
national sovereignty is not inviolable, and that it may be resolutely diminished for the sake of all the men in all the lands finding their way home together."—[Official Report, 27 June 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2159.]
When my right hon. Friend discusses these extremely important matters with her colleagues in the Community, will she consider not the unregenerate idealism of someone such as myself, who matters little, but the important idealism of the young people of Britain and elsewhere in Europe, who should be inspired by the idealism of the founding fathers, who have far to travel and who have not yet found their way home?

The Prime Minister: Every time we sign a treaty of international agreement we are voluntarily engaging in a certain pooling of sovereignty. That has been so almost ever since Parliament began and the first treaty was signed. When we went into the Common Market we agreed to pool our sovereignty on such things as the common

agricultural policy. Hitherto it was negotiated completely through Europe. We agreed to pool all our rights in trading with other nations and henceforth the Community conducted our trading negotiations through the Community and the Commission. There are other occasions where one pools one's sovereignty. To revert to what I was asked about earlier, taxation policy, economic policy and monetary policy go to the heart of the rights of this place, to the heart of representations by the people and to control of the Executive, and that is one of the reasons why the House exists.

Mr. Tony Banks: What pathetic, miserable and whingeing excuses is the Prime Minister going to offer the country for her party's humiliation in the Euro polls today?

The Prime Minister: I know that all our supporters will come out and vote strongly for our sort of Europe. I note that Opposition Members were not sufficiently confident in the results to come and question me in the House this afternoon. They had to run away. They felt that if they did not do so their supporters might not come out.

Engagements

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thurnham: If any members of Tonge Moor Conservative club have not heeded Mr. George Handley's excellent advice to be sure to vote today, will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remind them that the students in Peking are dying for democracy and that we should all go out and vote for the winning party, the party with more jobs, more exports, more productivity and more investment?

The Prime Minister: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This Conservative Government have created a strong Britain whose reputation rides high because we have put the economy in order. Voting Conservative today will help to create a strong Europe, and a strong Britain in a strong Europe, which pursues the same policies that have been so successful in this country.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware that nothing so clearly reveals the dead trouble that she is in over sterling than the pathetically orchestrated series of questions about the Leader of the Opposition talking down sterling? Is she not aware that the persistent bickering between her and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and her pathetic record on inflation and the balance of payments are driving down sterling? The Prime Minister's policies and her failure to deal with that situation in the markets in Europe are on trial.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has provided evidence of what we were complaining about earlier. The Opposition are out to write sterling down. Once again, he is at it, and his hon. Friends cannot leave it alone.

Rose Theatre

Mr. Clive Soley: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Rose theatre site.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): My announcement on 15 May that Imry Merchant Developers had agreed to delay work on the site of the Rose theatre for up to one month, gave a valuable breathing space. Imry recently announced a new design at an extra cost to them of £10 million.
English Heritage has advised me that the new design will, if it receives planning permission from the London borough of Southwark, both protect the remains and allow their proper evaluation and display. Scheduling is not necessary at this stage.
I have decided, after consideration, to accept that advice. I would reconsider my decision if that became necessary. I hope that all parties will now work together to make a success of a thoroughly sensible deal.

Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is an overwhelming demand in this country and overseas that the site should be scheduled? Virtually everyone wants that. The way in which we are treating our heritage is becoming a major item on overseas news broadcasts. The site fully qualifies for scheduling under the National Heritage Act 1983, as the Secretary of State is aware. English Heritage confirms that the site should be scheduled. Building an office block on top of the site is an act of vandalism and incredibly short-sighted, even from a commercial point of view. If the site was properly developed and enhanced it would bring in far more money as a tourist attraction than half a dozen office blocks on the land. Does not the Secretary of State also realise that if he persists in this course and if he does not change his mind, because of the National Heritage Act 1983 and other legislation, he is likely to face a challenge in the courts sooner or later?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman clearly comes new to this subject. The demand, with which I have every sympathy, is that the site should be protected and conserved for future public inspection and remain for all time available for people to see. The demand is not for it to be scheduled. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that English Heritage has recommended scheduling. It has not done that. The criterion for scheduling is that I should feel that the site is threatened in some way. As a result of advice from English Heritage, I do not feel that. The scheme put forward by Imry Merchant is probably the best way of protecting and putting these very important remains on public display. Instead of always griping in the way that he does, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay tribute to the developers for their enormous contribution and co-operation.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: May I say how pleased I am that my right hon. Friend has come forward with a scheme that is practical and that brings together the parties —the developers, the London borough of Southwark, English Heritage, the museum of London and those of us who wish the site to be made available and accessible and

preserved for posterity. If there is any further delay, the site may deteriorate. What is there now may be lost to future generations.
I recognise that the proposed solution will not satisfy everybody. There are those who feel that this is holy ground and that nothing should overshadow it. However, those who appreciate the necessity of recognising that we are in the 20th century but who nevertheless wish to preserve these elements of the past feel that this solution, which Imry has further considered and to which it is making a contribution of some £10 million, is one that we should support.

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should pay tribute to all concerned for the wonderful co-operation that they have shown in finding this solution. In the previous plan, 11 of the piles might have interfered with the foundations or other relics that were known to be there. The new design provides that the 11 piles will be moved to locations beyond the outer wall of the theatre. That shows remarkable co-operation. If this is holy ground—I would be too demure to express a view on such an important matter—holy ground needs to be protected. I believe that this is the best way to protect it. The wind, the rain, the frost and the sunlight will not do the ruins any good. They need to be protected.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that I appreciate the efforts that he, his Under-Secretary of State and Imry have made so far? However, the proposal is still a completely hit and miss approach to archaeology and to the rescue of our national heritage. Does he not accept that the logical way forward is to complete the excavation of the site and then to decide what building can be built on, near or around it that will not do any damage?
English Heritage has already agreed that the present proposals—to excavate in the area of the piles—may do damage and has said that as and when anything is found there may well be a request to the developers to move their piles yet again. There could be a series of requests and a series of altered designs. There have already been three. Would it not be far better to say, "Let's get the design right but only after the archaeology has been completed."
The Secretary of State concedes that this is a monument of national importance. English Heritage has admitted that it is a schedulable monument. Is it not crazy for the Secretary of State to say, "I may schedule it later and thereby give it the protection of the criminal law"? At the moment he is relying on a deal with the developer—and it could be a new developer if Imry were to sell tomorrow —which has no statutory force. At the time that the site needs most protection, which is now, the Secretary of State says that he does not intend to use his legal powers to intervene.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the tribute that the hon. Gentleman paid to the Under-Secretary of State who has, I believe, worked wonders in getting this deal through. The heat wave of the last month has created a risk of serious damage to the remains. It is now essential to provide protection for them. A membrane of Terram, followed by 40 cm of clean washed sand, is being placed on the remains for their best preservation. I do not believe that we should expose the remains to the risk of further damage from wind, weather and sunlight. That, therefore, is the correct


procedure. If the hon. Gentleman would like to find the cost of deferring the building, I leave it to him individually to do so—

Mr. Hughes: People are willing to do so.

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that the people who own the site are willing to sell it, so the hon. Gentleman has to take both sides of the bargain into account. I do not believe that the monument is under threat, unless we fail to cover it up now. It is only if I believed that the monument was under threat that I should be justified in scheduling it. That is why I have left the position open. If it is under threat, I shall reconsider the position.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my interest as a member of the Theatres Trust, which sought to exert a moderating influence in arguments that at one stage were getting a bit frenzied. I am most grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks and for putting down a certain backstop. I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), but a reasonable compromise has been reached. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are in future to encourage other developers to take a responsible attitude there should be some recognition of the developer's role and that we should be seen to suport the work of English Heritage in difficult circumstances?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend's for his remarks. The one-month delay that I intervened to secure, at some cost to public funds, was necessary in the unique circumstances of this important case. I am extremely happy that the result is that English Heritage, the developers, the voluntary sector and others co-operated to produce the correct solution. I echo my hon. Friend's tribute to Imry, whose costs were not inconsiderable. The outcome is a strong endorsement of the system of voluntary preservation and action that the Department has developed to preserve such remains. The whole House ought to be pleased at today's result, which strikes the right balance between the need for development and the need for preservation.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider four points. First, English Heritage said that the site is of schedulable quality. Secondly, will he look again at his responsibilities under the 1983 Act? Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's description of them in respect of vulnerability, that legislation defines three criteria and sub-criteria, and the Rose is generally considered to meet them all. Thirdly, archaeologists, the acting world and the public demand scheduling. The Secretary of State misrepresented that aspect. If he does not schedule the site, I suspect that an effort will be made to seek a judicial review or an appeal to judicial process. Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman is

correct to say that Terram and sand cover the site but I believe that Imry intends concreting on top of that sand, if it has not already done so. If the Secretary of State does not urgently reconsider his decision not to reschedule, he will preserve a 10-storey office block but he will not preserve the Rose.

Mr. Ridley: I am not arguing whether the site is of schedulable quality. The question is whether it is under threat. I am certain that I am correct in thinking that it is not. The hon. Gentleman said that he had four points to make but he only asked in four different ways whether I will reschedule. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the fact that a skin of concrete is to be laid over the washed sand. that is being done on the recommendation of English Heritage to preserve the monument. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to want to preserve the monument. He takes his case much further than is justified.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those right hon. and hon. Members who know the people who run English Heritage have great confidence in their judgment, and believe that their advice to date was wise and balanced and that the solution in prospect is sensible? My right hon. Friend is wise to retain an open mind. I ask him to take a personal interest along with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who played an extremely constructive and helpful role during a rather difficult period. I ask him also to keep in touch with Southwark borough council. It is important that the remains are displayed in a proper and attractive manner and that the building erected over the site is worthy of its setting.

Mr. Ridley: There is no way that I could avoid taking a personal interest—not only because I want to do 30 but there is intense public and parliamentary interest. I took a considerable amount of interest in events as they unfolded. I believe that the Government's action in this matter has resulted in an extremely satisfactory position. I am not saying that that will always be the case, but so far the result is extremely good.
I certainly agree that Southwark borough council has an extremely important role to play as it will be necessary to accommodate the new solution with planning consent—I must not prejudice whether that would be right or wrong—and there are various other ways in which Southwark can play a major part in contributing to the success of this operation. I am optimistic that it will work out.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that it will be possible to raise this matter in the debate which we are about to have on the arts. Some hon. Members now rising have already expressed their interest.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House kindly tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JUNE—Opposition Day (13th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Investment in Transport", afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Civil Liberties and a Bill of Rights". Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Social and Liberal Democrats.
Remaining stages of the Pesticides (Fees and Enforcement) Bill.
TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Motion relating to the statement of changes in immigration rules (HC 388).
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th Allotted Day, 1st half), until seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "Food Safety, Research and the Nation's Health".
Third Reading of the Local Government and Housing Bill.
Ways and Means resolutions relating to the Finance Bill.
Motions relating to Scottish social security and community charges regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Until seven o'clock motion on the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order.
Afterwards motion on the appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
FRIDAY 23 JUNE—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.

[Debate on Wednesday 21 June

Housing Benefit (Community Charge Rebates) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 361)

Community Charges (Information concerning Social Security) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 476)

Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support), (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (5.1., 1989, No. 507).]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Does he accept that it is intolerable that the new immigration regulations should be debated next Tuesday when they were made available in the House only yesterday? That has caused especial difficulty because of the European elections, and many hon. Members who are closely interested in the subject will not have an opportunity to study the new arrangements that are proposed before next Tuesday, the day of the debate. Will he consider postponing the debate to enable hon. Members on all sides of the House to study the detailed regulations and the Home Secretary's related announcements about DNA testing, and find an opportunity to debate them the following week?
In view of fresh evidence today from the Policy Review Institute that the YTS is failing young people, will the Government provide time for an early debate on their policy for training our young people, so that some improvements can be made before 1992 and our young people do not fall even further behind the training offered by our European competitors?
Returning to two old themes, it is now 15 months since the Government received the Griffiths report on care in the community. When are we likely to hear their response, and when shall we have the oportunity to debate that very important matter? On the other matter, which I have been raising for a long time, what progress or otherwise have the Government made towards establishing a scheme to substitute student loans for student grants? That has been promised for a long time and the Secretary of State for Education and Science does not seem to be making very much progress, even with the Tory bankers with whom he is discussing the matter.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked me four questions about the business for next week. First, he complained about the time and the date that I have allocated for the debate on immigration issues. I agree that it is not the most convenient time in view of other matters, but it enables us to raise the subject. I believe that the time provided is adequate. In view of the hon. Gentleman's request, I shall see whether the matter can be pursued through the usual channels.
The Government fully recognise the importance of training and we are spending £3 billion on training provision now, as opposed to the £500 million spent in 1979. These matters were relevant to a Bill we were discussing a short time ago. I cannot promise a debate in the near future but I am sure that it is a subject to which we shall return when an opportunity presents itself.
I am not sorry that the hon. Gentleman asked about the Griffiths report because the subjects he mentions are up to him. However, he has raised the subject several times before and I can assure him that we attach great importance to the Griffiths report and the Wagner report. Work is ongoing on our proposals, which we shall bring forward in the near future. Given the complexities of the matter, we must give full consideration to the subject so that we reach the right answers. I am sure that the time for a debate will be when we have announced our proposals.
On top-up loans for students, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science hopes to be able to report his conclusions on the administration of the scheme quite soon now. The right time for a debate will be after that.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As someone who for a great length of time has been concerned that measures should be introduced to cope with dog nuisance, may I say how delighted I am that the Government have given a commitment to introduce legislation. Can my right hon. Friend say when that legislation will be introduced? For example, will it be introduced in the other place during progress on the Local Government and Housing Bill? If so, will it also cover the new system for introducing byelaws swiftly and effectively.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome of the announcement made by my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I cannot give him any further information now, but I shall bear in mind the points he makes.

Mr. James Wallace: It is known that the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the issue of strategic planning guidance for London and that an announcement is expected before the summer recess. Undoubtedly, the debate on transport on Monday will provide an opportunity to raise some of the issues about traffic congestion in the capital city. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge the genuine concern of hon. Members who represent seats throughout the country, not just in London, about the strategic planning of our capital city? The need for integrated planning is important and it will be an opportunity for a debate before the Secretary of State makes the announcement.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that these matters raise important considerations and that some of my hon. Friends have been asking me to find time for a debate. I have promised that I will consider the matter but, at this stage in the parliamentary year, I cannot promise absolutely that there will he time for a debate.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept thanks for what he has just said about future development plans, which I understand was included in his previous answer? Will he tell us when he will find time to discuss the Green Papers on the future of the legal profession?

Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked before about providing time for a debate on those matters. We had a short debate rather late at night on the Lord Chancellor's salary order during which the subject was raised. I wish I could find time for further discussion but I have a feeling that we shall return to it before too long.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Tuesday and Wednesday week the Prime Minister and, no doubt others, will be going to the European Council Heads of Government meeting? Has he not received a letter from me in my capacity as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee recommending a debate prior to that meeting? Is he not aware that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee has heard evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England and will be issuing a report early next week? Surely a debate on this matter should come within the terms of the resolution of 30 October 1980. The fact that the Leader of the House has not announced a debate next week shows that the Government are not contemplating one. Will he reconsider the timetable and urgently schedule a debate of these important matters for next week, before the Prime Minister goes to Madrid?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman takes a deep interest in these matters and is extremely knowledgeable. I will always reconsider any matter that he raises at Business Question Time. However, as he said, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently given evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and I regret that as things stand now, I am unable to find time for a debate before the Madrid summit.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Notwithstanding what you, Mr. Speaker, have just said about today's debate on the arts and heritage, will my right hon. Friend

arrange for a statement on the Rose theatre as soon as there is any change, next week if necessary? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the beautiful story by Oscar Wilde called "The Nightingale and the Rose" in which a nightingale thought it right to bleed its breast into the thorn of a rose which was fading, in order to save it. The rose bloomed beautifully but at dawn the nightingale fell dead. No one wishes to see anyone fall dead in this episode, but to save the Rose is worth a sacrifice.

Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was neither wilting nor likely to fall dead. He gave a good account of the Government's position on the matter. The best plan would be to have today's debate on the arts and heritage and to watch the developments, but I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Kevin Barron: When will the Government find time to debate the British coal mining industry? Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the Department of Energy announced another 15,000 job losses in that industry this year and that that is on top of the loss of some 140,000 jobs in the industry in the past four and a half years? When the industry has improved productivity by 75 per cent. in the past three years it deserves more protection from the Government than it is getting.

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asks when I can arrange a debate on the coal industry, and the answer to that is tomorrow, Sir.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend will recall that on Tuesday Parliament was lobbied by more than 100 workers in the electricity industry, representing the staff of Marchwood engineering laboratories in my constituency which undertakes work for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I have been struck by the response from parliamentary colleagues who support the workers' case, represented on the Order Paper by early-day motion 983:
[That, recognising that 80 per cent. of the electricity research work carried out by Marchwood Engineering Laboratories relates to nuclear power generation, this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to allocate Marchwood Engineering Laboratories to the National Power Co., rather than, as proposed by the Central Electricity Generating Board, to Power Gen; but as a preferred alternative suggests that the principal Central Electricity Generating Board research facilities including Berkeley, Leatherhead and Marchwood should be combined to form an electricity research and development company which would bid for Rand D contracts from the power generating companies once the electricity industry was privatised.]
That calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision to allocate Marchwood engineering laboratories to Power Gen while 80 per cent. of its research and development work is nuclear-related. There has been a more sensible suggestion that the research and development capability of the CEGB should be incorporated into a single independent company to contract research and development work to the industry once privatised and that proposal is now gaining support. I am sorry to bounce this on my right hon. Friend, but will he consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for


Energy, who is at present considering the position, and suggest to him that the House should have an opportunity to debate that matter before he reaches a conclusion?

Mr. Wakeham: I have already consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, as I do on every early-day motion on the Order Paper as a matter of routine every week so that I come prepared. My right hon. Friend has received detailed representations on the matter from my hon. Friend and from representatives of the Marchwood employees. He is considering the matter most carefully and hopes to give a decision on the allocation of Marchwood shortly.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House please arrange an early debate on advertising standards? We have just been talking about the Rose theatre, but has the right hon. Gentleman seen the advertisements—I have photographs of them—in various streets in London put out by Flowers brewery which say:
Not all flowers are pansies".
Is he aware that everyone knows that the slang word pansy refers to gay men and that that advertisement is causing a great deal of offence? I have received a number of complaints from my constituents. Those advertisements appear to have gone up in what one can only describe as the hard-drinking macho areas of London, where they are clearly calculated to try to stimulate homophobic attitudes among people. If the Leader of the House is not prepared to have a debate on that, will he make representations to his Cabinet colleague who is responsible for the Advertising Standards Authority to have those offensive advertisements taken down forthwith?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether that is necessarily an appropriate matter for me to deal with in business questions. Whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to make the speech that he might want to make in the debate next Wednesday will depend, to an extent, on you, Mr. Speaker, and on his ingenuity, but it is just possible.
With regard to advertising standards and the drinks industry, I have talks with advertisers from time to time in my capacity as chairman of the Government committee on alcohol misuse. I find their representatives helpful and constructive in their approach to high and proper standards in advertising. I shall certainly see whether it is appropriate to discuss with them the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I complain to my right hon. Friend about his apparent policy of allowing late debates or, even worse, no debates on EC issues of great importance? Is he aware that the absence of a debate before the Madrid summit is regretted in all parts of the House? Is he also aware that to tackle as important an EC directive as the one on broadcasting, as we did this week at 2 o'clock in the morning, is a matter of regret not just to individual members, but is now, apparently, the subject of an official rebuke from the Select Committee on European Legislation? Since that directive has now to come back to the House as a result of a decision in Europe, will he please guarantee that we shall consider it at an appropriate hour?

Mr. Wakeham: I have an enormous amount of sympathy with my hon. Friend and I entirely agree that our arrangements for dealing with the scrutiny of European matters is not satisfactory. I have done my best to try to encourage further consideration as to how we might improve such scrutiny. I have given evidence to the Procedure Committee and I am glad that it is considering this matter. I have had meetings with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and I hope to have another meeting with him fairly soon. I have had discussions with right hon. and hon. Members from all sides of the House on how best we can deal with what is clearly a problem. If my hon. Friend would like to come to talk to me about how he thinks we could improve matters I should be delighted to see him.

Heads of Government Meeting, Madrid

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important national matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the agenda of the Heads of Government meeting, European Council, in Madrid on 27 and 28 June next".
You will have heard the exchanges, Mr. Speaker, immediately preceding this application and the courtesy of the Leader of the House who said that he is attempting to improve debates on matters of scrutiny. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that he has not provided the opportunity for such a debate.
The matter is specific in so far as some important items on the agenda are concerned, particularly the report of the Delors committee, commissioned at the last Heads of Government meeting, on full economic and monetary union within the European Community. I need not emphasise the importance and significance of that report and its recommendations for the future of the nation and its potential consequences for virtually all our future economic, political and social life.
Two Select Committees of this House will have reports available early next week and the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have given evidence to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. The Select Committee on European Legislation has reported that the Delors report should be debated within the terms of the resolution of the House on 30 October 1980, which appears to have been discounted or overlooked in the statement that we have just heard from the Lord President in reply to my question.
If the House is to have any influence on those of Her Majesty's Ministers who will be attending this important meeting, where decisions of principle could be taken, it is essential that the matter be debated in time—I refer to the Standing Orders. I submit, therefore, that bearing in mind the ancient privileges of this House, particularly those concerning consultation prior to decisions, and prior to legislation, you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the rights and liberties of the House and thus of all the subjects, should place the application before the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the forthcoming meeting of the Heads of Government in the European Council in Madrid on 27 and 28 June next.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said about his matter. As he knows, my sole duty in considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today—

Mr. Spearing: Or for Monday, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On Monday.
I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House, but I hope that he will find other methods of raising it.

Arts and Heritage

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on the arts and heritage. I intend to concentrate on the broad themes of the Government's arts policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) will answer the debate and dwell in more detail on the heritage.
This House has debated the arts every year since I became Minister for the Arts in 1985. This is the third year running that we have debated the subject in Government time.
There are many heartening signs that an increasing number of people are concerned about issues that will affect the quality of life, not only of themselves but their children and grandchildren. The public interest is becoming all-embracing. The natural desire for a pollution-free environment is matched by a growing interest in our architecture—and in the importance of attractive surroundings. There is an increasing ability to turn away from the mundane aspects of daily life to enjoy a range of recreation. The arts fit within this pattern. The criteria are quite clear: that more people want to enjoy leisure and to educate themselves through museums, galleries, theatres, concerts, opera and jazz or by trying out their own creative talents, through crafts, photography or painting. For deep down we know, as Dostoevsky echoed,
Man does not live by bread alone".
We need something deeper to turn to.
As we witness the last lashings of the tail of the dying crocodile of Communism in so many parts of the world, the challenge to genuine democracies lies in demonstrating that we offer real political and economic freedom and the best means of improving our quality of life.
We cannot achieve this unless the culture of wealth creation is deeply embedded in our life. This has become the case under this Government. The search for a higher standard of wealth must be tireless, but now is the time to focus our attention upon how to make the best use of this new climate for the quality of our lives. As we look forward to the turn of the century, we must open up even further the opportunity for individuals to extend their horizons and to enrich their daily lives. We have every reason to be proud of our artistic achievements in this country.
It is an important Government job to create the climate whereby we can achieve the highest standards of excellence and creativity. We want to ensure that all those who wish to do so have the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of this or to participate and use their own talents. We best achieve this in a democratic society where the freedom of artistic expression is a central principle. We will best inspire genius and talent by the greatest possible delegation of decision-making from the centre, by encouraging art in our schools and by encouraging financial support from a variety of sources.
The most potent challenge that we face today is the need to ensure that the best our our arts is accessible to all those who have the potential to enjoy it. That is a central part of my strategy and I shall now take a few moments to describe how I am attempting to achieve it.
It is against that background that I reaffirm the importance I attach to a policy of maximum arm's length so that it is not the Minister and his officials in Whitehall who make the day-to-day decisions about artistic standards and management. The arm's-length principle has been totally supported by successive Governments of both parties since the war. I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will take the opportunity of this debate to reaffirm his party's support for that principle.
It is important to strengthen and preserve artistic freedom. The arm's-length policy, working for example through the Arts Council and other bodies, is a way to achieve this. I know that the council shares my concern to foster the highest standards of artistic excellence and access to the arts by maintaining and developing centres of excellence throughout the country.
In the context of the arm's-length principle, I am concerned to strengthen the accountability of the arts organisations for the taxpayers' money that they receive and I want to see whether the funding structure which we have, through the Arts Council and the regional arts associations, can be improved, so that they are as coherent and efficient as possible. I have therefore commissioned a review, which is now being conducted by Mr. Richard Wilding—formerly permanent head of the Office of Arts and Libraries—who will report to me by 31 October this year. I regard the review as extremely important.
Let me take this opportunity to tell the House about some of the measures that I am taking, along with the arts world, to promote both excellence and access.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: My right hon. Friend has referred to access to the past and to the need to develop centres of excellence. Our right hon. Friend's decision about the Rose site is particularly welcome, because access to the past will be provided.
Those who are interested—particularly members of the acting profession, who have shown a commendable concern about the need for access to the past—should be encouraged now to direct their attention to a nearby potential centre of excellence. I refer to the site of the Globe theatre, literally yards from the Rose site. The interests of those people, and of my right hon. Friend, in "living stones" can thus provide a forum for excellence in the future rather than access to the past.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend has made an important point, not only about the Rose theatre but about the plans for the Globe, which I believe will lead to considerable public support and interest. I am glad to note the progress that has been made in raising funds, and I hope that the construction of the proposed Globe theatre will start soon. I think that it has every prospect of becoming a great centre of excellence, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it.
I had begun to focus on the question of excellence, and that of accessibility to it. Let me illustrate that further. The national museums and galleries are in the forefront. For example, the Tate gallery opened the new "Tate in Liverpool" in 1988, and has already attracted nearly half a million visitors in its first six months. The National Portrait Gallery has put an important part of its reserve collection on display in no fewer than four country houses

—in Somerset, Yorkshire, Lancashire and North Wales. The British Film Institute's new museum of the moving image has had more than 250,000 visitors since it opened in September 1988, well above the number expected. The Victoria and Albert museum has announced plans to open an outstation in Bradford to house part of its great Indian collection. There are other examples: for instance the imperial war museum and the science museum also have plans.
We have extended the principle to loans and exhibitions, to which considerable importance is attached, not only by me but by many other hon. Members, as they house our greatest objects of art and our greatest collections. The British museum, for example, consistently lends more objects than any other institution in the world —2,500 in 1987. In 1987–88 the Tate gallery, which houses more contemporary works, lent 556, 303 within the United Kingdom and the rest abroad.
The Government help the process through their indemnity scheme. In the last financial year, objects valued at £1 billion were indemnified for exhibition. In April 1988 I established the travelling exhibition unit at the Museums and Galleries Commission, and it promoted 10 projects during its first year. I hope that as it expands it will facilitate many other exhibitions around the country.
I also attach great importance to touring. It was in the interests of excellence and access that I gave the Arts Council extra money for its budget, to be earmarked for increased touring. It allocated £1·5 million for the purpose in 1988–89, financing more than 60 weeks of extra touring, including 38 for drama.
By contrast, I was glad, too, to be able to make a contribution of £150,000 to the fund set up by the Carnegie Trust to help make arts venues more accessible to disabled people.
In areas such as inner cities, and in the rural arts, a great deal is being done to open up the prospects of more access to the arts to people who live in those areas. It would be wrong not to mention in particular the city of Glasgow, which has done outstanding work in promoting its arts, using them to bring great benefits to the city and the country. I was glad to be able to make a contribution of £500,000 towards the city's preparations for its role as European city of culture in 1990.
There are other areas as well. For example, in broadcasting I welcome the fact that the Arts Council is doing work on improving access to the arts through broadcasting, and it is developing some proposals in that context.
I regard investment in education as almost the biggest for the longer term. The Education Reform Act ensures a central place for the arts and heritage in the core curriculum and the GCSE examinations. That is why the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I announced in May a joint initiative to emphasise the importance of the arts in the school curriculum.
The public today expect art to be an integral part of the environment In response to that, many local authorities and private companies are initiating imaginative public arts projects. Birmingham leads the way in that, and the British library has some exciting schemes for its new building.
In that connection, there is no finer example of the Government's commitment to these joint objectives of excellence and access than the new British library. For the first time, we are giving the library a purpose-built home,


bringing together under one roof the majority of its London-based collections in a properly controlled, pollution-free environment. The whole building is due to be completed and fully in use by 1996. Costing well over £400 million in cash terms, it is the Government's largest single civil project. It will be one of Britain's greatest cultural achievements and a significant addition to our heritage.
The project shows the importance we attach to the work of scholarship and my concern to marry the best work of our scholars to public access and enjoyment. In this context, I am making a point of visiting national museums and galleries to meet the staff. I have recently been to the V and A and to the national maritime museum, and I have several more visits of that kind planned. I have been impressed by the dedication and hard work that I have seen.
In connection with the heritage, I appreciate that there are particular problems and pressures posed by the constant and high price rises in the art market. I am reviewing some of the mechanisms in this sphere to see where I can help, and I will mention a few.
Recently there was considerable criticism that the price of Turner's "Seascape, Folkestone" was not published when I announced my recommendation to defer a decision on the export licence application. The reason for the withholding of the Turner price was the option given to owners not to disclose. I shared the concern that was expressed and I am rectifying this anomaly. From now on, if an object is placed under deferral, following consideration by the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art, the price will be published. Owners will be told this in the letter they receive from the Department of Trade and Industry informing them of an objection to export. I hope that this change will help public collections in their fund-raising, especially where they launch a public appeal.
Acknowledging, as I do, this increase in prices, I have decided to revise the limits for export licences very soon. This is in accordance with the recommendations put to me by the export reviewing committee. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are also well aware of the problems posed by the withdrawal of what is known as the indefinite stop procedure. We are giving urgent attention to finding a solution to that problem.
To give priority to the housing and conservation of existing collections, as the museums and galleries have asked us to do, the Government have been obliged to keep purchase grants at a constant cash level since 1985–86. I am well aware of the problems that this poses and I have already announced that I am considering how to deal with them.
I also conducted a consultation exercise last year on what discretionary powers, if any, museums and galleries should have to dispose of items from their collections. Bearing in mind the responses that I have received, my aim will be to ensure that any relevant powers are, as far as possible, tailor-made to meet the specific requirements of each institution. I hope that it is helpful to the House for me to reaffirm that principle. As I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West will cover other important heritage themes, and the House has already had a brief chance today to discuss the latest developments on the Rose theatre.
I shall now deal with the matter of funding. In order to provide excellence for as many people as possible, the arts

need financial support, and the more sources that they have to draw on the healthier and freer they will be. However, I fully accept that, for the foreseeable future, the taxpayer's role is also important. Let me put Government art funding in perspective. Some people like to suggest that 10, 20, or 30 years ago, and especially 20 years ago, saw the great golden age of the arts. It is important to put that in perspective.
It is interesting to note that, in real terms, the Arts Council receives three times as much from the Government today as it did in the late 1960s. Since its creation by the Goverment in 1980 the national heritage memorial fund has received over £105 million from the taxpayer. The budgets of our national museums and galleries are also at record levels and central Government spending on them has risen by 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979–80. Funding for their building programmes has increased by about 50 per cent. in real terms over the same period.
Let us make no mistake about the achievement of the Government. There has been an overall increase in arts funding of 39 per cent., in real terms, including abolition money, since 1979, and that is a strong achievement. I am especially pleased that I was able to announce in November 1987 a new departure in arts funding in which firm figures were set for the next three years. The object of that is to give arts bodies a firm basis on which to plan their future activities and their various sources of funding, and to encourage greater self-reliance. We are already seeing its results in some excellent forward thinking—for example, in the Arts Council's three-year business plan and in the corporate plans of the museums and galleries.

Mr. Mark Fisher: The Minister will be aware that I have often congratulated him on the achievement of finding a three-year funding formula of which the whole art world approves and has been seeking for a long time. Does he accept that the second and third years of the formula are at rates well below the rate of inflation, and that any advantages arising from the security of planning are more than offset by the fact that in those two years all arts clients will have a cut in real terms?

Mr. Luce: I shall shortly deal with inflation and respond to the hon. Gentleman's question. I again acknowledge that I am fully aware of the pressures and problems faced by the arts. As the hon. Gentleman has said, first among these is the effect of inflation. The Government's absolute priority is and must be the conquest of inflation. We must continue the battle against it, for the arts as well as for all other areas of activity. We are thinking, as we should in the arts world, of three-year funding in many areas, and the amount of money that we make available must be seen in the context of the three-year total. For the first year, I increased the Arts Council's funding by 10 per cent. It is true that the amount was lower in the second and third years.
Creative funding partnerships are seen throughout the arts, and business sponsorship is a marvellous success story. It has been considerably helped by the Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme administered for me by the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts. Since its introduction in 1984, it has produced almost £25 million of new money—£2·40 from the private sector for every £1 from the taxpayer.
The first-class management of arts bodies is now being recognised and awarded through the incentive funding scheme. I gave the Arts Council money for that in the 1987 settlement—£12·5 million over three years—and 48 awards have already been made to organisations throughout the country. The Arts Council expects the scheme to produce £3 of private sector money for every £1 from the taxpayer.
I am extending this incentive approach into all areas of my reponsibility. There is a new incentive scheme for the conservation of manuscripts, and the public library incentive scheme is in its second year.
The contribution of local authorities to arts funding is invaluable. To take just one example, Birmingham city council gives an annual grant of just under £800,000 to the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra, showing its total commitment to this outstanding centre of excellence.
The arts are also immeasurably enriched by many outstanding examples of private generosity. We all know of the Sainsbury family contribution for the new wing at the national gallery. We should refer to the Clore Foundation, which contributed no less than £6 million to the cost of the new gallery for the Turner collection at the Tate, and to the remarkable contribution of Mr. John Paul Getty 11, who plans to give £50 million as an endowment fund for the national gallery. He is also a leading private donor to funding for the British Film Institute's highly successful museum of the moving image, which was built for £11 million without a penny from the Government.
A private donation is enabling the Victoria and Albert museum to open a new Chinese gallery and the museum has just received generous donations from the Hinduja foundation and from Jenson and Nicholson for its new gallery of Indian art. It should also be mentioned that, in the past five years the British museum has raised nearly £12 million of private money for building and gallery work. The library and services of the British Theatre Association, which were threatened with closure earlier this year, were saved through the outstanding generosity of Mr. Robert Holmes à Court.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: This is a genuine question. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what efforts are being made to get local business sponsorship and support, because much of what he has said has been in relation to national sponsorship? We no longer have the great shipping magnates in Liverpool and other such cities, where we depended very much on their support. Obviously, we cannot raise all the money at local level through local authorities. This is an important matter and I would like to know how much thought has been given to it and what has been done in that direction.

Mr. Luce: I fully acknowledge the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. He puts his finger on the problem, which I think is gradually being solved through the business sponsorship incentive scheme. The evidence is that the scheme is successful as a national scheme, not just a London scheme. I have been just as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to encourage sponsorship in Merseyside and Scotland, for example. There is increasing evidence that the scheme is being taken up, sometimes on a modest basis,

but that does not matter; once the thing starts, other businesses come in and I believe that the incentive scheme has done a great deal to encourage that.
In this context, I am delighted to tell the House about another noticeable development. The Arts Council has decided to establish an endowment fund to support new and experimental work. It has been launched with a £1·1 million gift to the council from an anonymous legacy. The council is now working on plans to expand the size of the fund to a target of £20 million.
Indeed, great effort from many sources goes into our arts and heritage: into their creation, production and preservation and into funding, supporting and enjoying them.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: It seems appropriate here to raise the question of value added tax on new works of art. Whereas VAT is designed to encourage exports of everything else, it also encourages exports of works of art. If they are sold abroad, they are sold at a discount of 15 per cent. or at the price for which the artist is asking rather than being sold in this country, presumably under the scheme that my right hon. Friend has just announced, with a bare 15 per cent. VAT addition. Would he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see if that cannot be changed?

Mr. Luce: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject and of course I will raise the point with the Chancellor. There is now a great deal of discussion within the Community of the implications of 1992 for the art trade. But I will, of course, bear the point in mind and raise it with my right hon. Friend.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to blow the trumpet for our marvellous arts organisations and their leadership.
The test of all this is our ability to produce art of lasting quality. As Henry Austin Dobson said:
All passes; art alone, enduring, stays to us.
There is no reason why we should not be producing the same talent today as we have in previous generations. Just as Shakespeare, Bacon, Gainsborough, Turner, T. S. Eliot, Elgar, Kipling and Byron have endured, so I believe that there are artists of genius today who will be remembered and enjoyed in centuries to come.
Our artistic quality is a true test of the level of our civilisation. Any Arts Minister has the duty to ensure that the outlet for genius and creativity is as strong as ever in the last part of this century. That is the duty which I try to fulfil.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Any congratulations that are due to the Government for this debate on the arts are dwarfed by the timing of the debate. We had an arts debate five years ago on European election day and, by an extraordinary coincidence, once again, on a European election day when hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to be helping in European constituencies, we have another arts debate.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has the hon. Gentleman thought of that word "dwarfed" in relation to a comparison between the different numbers on the two sides of the House? Despite the difficulties of being present, there are three times as many on Conservative Benches as there are on Opposition Benches.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is the quality that is important.

Mr. Fisher: As my right hon. Friend has said, by the end of the debate, we shall be able to judge the quality of the contributions. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Gentleman made that point. There is a simple answer. Tory Members know that they will be thrashed in the European elections, so there is no point in them being in the constituencies. They are better cowering here than facing the electorate. We know that we shall have a triumph in the polls today and my right hon. and hon. Friends are out celebrating in advance the enormous vote of confidence that the electorate are giving us. The difference in enthusiasm in getting out and facing the electorate is hardly surprising. It is interesting that Tory Members are here rather than doing that.
It is not good enough to have the debate on this day. I do not blame the Minister for this. It is the usual channels, or the Chief Whip, or the Leader of the House. [Interruption.] An hon. Member who is not supposed to speak has said that I am not sure who is to blame and that is probably true. The timing of the debate reflects the interest in art and culture among senior members of the Cabinet. In their view, these are unimportant issues that can be debated on what are, in parliamentary terms, non-days. Our contention is that the arts and heritage are vital to the democratic and cultural life, to community identity and cohesion, to employment and the economy. I wish that the Government—I exclude the Minister from this—placed the same importance on the arts and culture as we do. If they did, we would be having this debate in prime time.
I welcome the debate and the chance to respond to the Minister's interesting speech. It gives us an opportunity both to examine the cultural balance sheet in the arts and heritage after 10 years of the Government and to look at it in the light of this European election day and compare our policies and practice with those of our European partners. Statistics are difficult to compare because they are arranged in different definitions in different countries and with different regional and central Government balances. I welcome the fact that the Office of Arts and Libraries is funding a Policy Studies Institute study to look at those comparative statistics. I hope that it will be finished soon and that we can see the published results.
The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I suspect that those results will show that other European countries spend a great deal more on their arts and heritage than we do. The figures available from the Arts Council and others show that France and West Germany spend 0·8 per cent. of total central Government expenditure on the arts when we spend about 0·25 per cent. We spend less than half the level of other countries. On a per capita basis, we spend between £7 and £9 a head—there are different figures in different parts of the United Kingdom—Germany spends about £15 to £16, France about £17 and Sweden about £24. That is an interesting reflection on the relative importance that other countries give to the arts. I welcome the evidence that the Minister is attempting to ascertain the facts. I hope that he will use that material well in getting more money from the Treasury. Currently we are limping behind our European counterparts.
If central Government are not yet responding, local authorities are. The authorities recognise that there is a real demand from audience and artists in the local

community and they have been increasing their expenditure enormously, and probably at a faster rate than any other set of local authorities in the European Community. I hope that the Government will recognise that local message. The Minister's remarks today about Glasgow and other local communities suggest that he may be aware of it and recognises it. It seems, unfortunately, that the local message is something to which the Government are fairly deaf. I hope that they will listen more attentively.
Let us consider the 10-year balance sheet that sets out the Government's record. The Minister has set out some of the criteria that he thinks we should be examining. I have paid tribute already to the fact that he secured three-year funding. He has made attempts with the Arts Council to devolve more to the regions. I welcome, for example, the move of Sadler's Wells to Birmingham, Tate in the north and other initiatives, on which I congratulate the Minister. However, the Government's record overall is a poor one. I welcome the things that are happening but the Government's response to initiatives has been poor.
Over the past 10 years we have done well in museum terms. We have seen the expansion of industrial museums, but the Government's response has been to allow a real crisis to develop in repairs to and maintenance of our national museums. There has been an exciting increase in the interest of audiences in dance. The Government commissioned, through the Arts Council, the Devlin report, which does not take the French Government's view that we should invest to reflect the increased interest of audiences in dance. The premise of the Devlin report was that there should be no more funding. That is why it came to the conclusion that the Northern Ballet Theatre should be axed. We welcome the fact that it has a two-year breathing space. It is unfortunate that the Government are not responding to exciting developments.
There is a range of opera touring companies, including Opera North and Kent Opera. Unfortunately, there are severe question marks over Kent Opera's future. Given the good work that it is doing, it would be a tragedy if it were to be axed.
In local authorities, whatever the political persuasion, we are seeing an increase in the number of arts officers and the development of arts policy. There is an increase in expenditure in both Conservative and Labour-controlled authorities. This is apparent in shire counties and metropolitan areas. It is taking place in spite of the fact that the Government have taken £28 billion from local authorities through the rate support grant over the past 10 years. The RSG has been cut from 61 per cent. of funding to 45 per cent. The enormously exciting increase in expenditure on the arts by local authorities and local communities has not been taken up by the Government. On the contrary, they have done their best to inhibit it. The Government's role has been shortsighted. At a time of unprecedented interest by audiences and extremely high quality of work by artists and writers throughout the country, the Government's record is a miserable one of neglect, underfunding and missed opportunities.
The Government are out of touch and out of sympathy with what is going on in the arts around the country. That is extremely sad.
Both libraries and museums should be enjoying a golden age. I pay tribute to the Government's GCSE syllabus, which put a terrific and new emphasis on children working from primary sources. The opportunities for


working in libraries and in museums with primary sources is enormous and should mean an expansion of audiences and activities in libraries and museums. We find, however, that, after 10 years of care for libraries by the present Government, fewer public libraries are open. Those that are open are open for fewer hours, and the spending on book funds has fallen.
Everyone agrees that information is the key element in the development of our economy. Our public libraries are the main source of important industrial and community information on patents, standards and legal and tariff barriers. Ten years ago there were 22,000 requests for information at Birmingham central library. Last year, there were 579,000 requests. That is a 163 per cent. increase, showing an explosion of interest and involvement in the public libraries' information services. However, the Government have been cutting the funding of public libraries.
As a result of the GCSE, there is a need for more library facilities as most schools are struggling to keep up their book funds. Very few schools have professional chartered librarians. My four children have now been through the state system and none of them attended a high school or primary school which had a chartered librarian. In school, they had virtually no experience of professional libraries. That is a wasted opportunity and a tragedy.
There has been a general collapse in national and regional libraries. Over the past year there have been reports from the Museums and Galleries Commission, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee which all tell the Minister the same story. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is hearing evidence from the directors of our major national museums. Mr. Neil MacGregor recently explained to that Select Committee the problems facing his gallery.
When will the Government recognise the crisis? When will they recognise that the Tate gallery needs £27 million for repairs and maintenance of basics like wiring, safety procedures and security? The Victoria and Albert museum has a £50 million backlog of repairs and maintenance and anticipates that it will need £120 million over the next five years. The National Maritime museum needs £19 million for repairs and maintenance. How much more evidence must be put in front of the Minister before he does something about the fabric of our great national museums?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman takes no notice when we announce positive decisions. He is either deaf or does not want to listen. Does he acknowledge that, as a result of representations about the structure of our important national institutions, I have decided to shift resources to building and maintenance to the tune of an extra 55 per cent. over a four-year period in acknowledgment of that very problem? It is very difficult to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he does not acknowledge that the Government are trying to do something about it.

Mr. Fisher: Of course we acknowledge that the Government are trying to do something. However, the Minister must understand that the initiative which he has announced, in comparison to the evidence before him, is completely inadequate. Even after the Minister's initiative, the museums are going backwards. He should ask himself

why those major museums, 15 months after they were given the opportunity to take over the running of their properties from the Property Services Agency, are still reluctant to take on that responsibility. Instead of being given an opportunity by the Government, they know that they are being handed a load of debt and problems.
In welcoming any small moves which the Minister has made, he must understand that he has made an inadequate response to what is becoming a national scandal about the state of the fabric of our national museums. That point is highlighted particularly by the problems facing the Victoria and Albert museum over the past few months, but the problems are not confined to that museum.
The problems in libraries and museums have been increasing over the past few years. However, this year, the tenth year of the Prime Minister's reign, has been the worst. The Minister has spent the whole year fire-fighting problems which all stem from the problems that have developed over the past 10 years. He should not have had to do that.
For example, the British Theatre Association library was saved by a benefactor, no thanks to the Minister or the Government. We cannot rely on people like Mr. Holmes a Court to come along and bale out the Government, who have a public and national responsibility for a unique archive and resource.

Mr. John Bowis: I have been looking at the figures because the hon. Gentleman painted an abysmal picture of libraries. I cannot reconcile what he said with the facts. The number of service points for libraries has increased from 14,000 to 18,000. There has been no fall in the number of books purchased and 11 million books are purchased every year. Library book stocks have increased from 110 million to 116 million and library staffing is at its highest level for 10 years.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should try to understand the figures that he has quoted or with which the Office of Arts and Libraries has provided him. He is not quoting the number of public libraries; he is quoting public book stocks in hospitals and old people's homes. There are not 14,000 or 20,000 public libraries in this country. There are actually—

Mr. Bowis: No, service points.

Mr. Fisher: Service points are not the important thing. The important thing is that there are 4,000 public libraries in this country. There has been a drop of 200 libraries. No one disputes that, with an aging population, there are more service points in old people's homes and hospitals. However, the number of libraries open to the public has fallen. The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who I am sure looks at these matters fairly, should recognise that.
This year there was a missed opportunity with the British Theatre Association library. A similar opportunity was missed with the Northern Ballet Theatre. The Theatre Upstairs at the Royal Court and the Studio Theatre at the Theatre Royal in Bristol—the Bristol Old Vic—have had to close. Children's theatres such as the Polka and the Unicorn are facing real problems as a result of new regulations which inhibit children and prevent them leaving schools in organised parties to visit theatre performances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will consider heritage later. The problems at Huggin Hill have matched those of the Rose theatre. We will also have problems very soon about the archaeological remains at the King's Cross site. We shall have similar problems along the route of the Channel tunnel. The problems are stacking up.
This tenth year of Thatcherism has been a very bad year for the Government quite apart from the missed opportunities at Covent Garden, King's Cross, in Docklands and on the South Bank where there are major international opportunities for the Government to make a formidable statement about how much we care about our culture. However, the Government are standing idly by and letting the private sector get on with it.
The Minister made an interesting speech this afternoon. I have often berated him about his lack of policy and vision. I recognise that this afternoon he attempted to address those problems. Many of his aspirations on more opportunities for all, on audience participation, on pride in arts achievements in this country, on arts in schools, devolution, access and excellence were all fine aspirations and fine words which hon. Members on both sides of the House would share and applaud in full.
The Minister asked me to respond in particular to his remarks about the arm's-length principle and the future of the Arts Council. This Government and other Governments have considered the arm's-length principle to involve what is at the end of the arm. The fact that the arm is extended does not mean to say that the Government do not control, at the end of the arm, the Arts Council through Government funding limits. That has become true over the past few years when the arts world has considered that the Arts Council is moving closer to the Government.
We believe that a truly independent Arts Council is one that can speak for the arts world to the Government instead of to the arts world on behalf of the Government as, on occasion, the Arts Council appears to have done over the past few years. There are exceptions to that. It took an honourable, principled and brave stand on clause 28 last year and told the Government that they were wrong. However, too often companies in the arts world feel that the .Arts Council must, because of its funding relationship with the Government, speak too much on behalf of the Government instead of to the Government. We would seek to reduce the patronage of the Arts Council to have an independent Arts Council which spoke for, and on behalf of, the arts world. We shall submit evidence to Mr. Wilding's inquiry which we welcome. No doubt we will debate those matters at greater length in future.
I welcome the Minister's announcement about the innovation endowment fund. The need for innovation is great. However, I doubt whether that, of itself, is an adequate or sufficient solution and whether money solely dispensed by the Arts Council from the centre—from London, from the top—is the best way to stimulate innovation in all forms of arts and culture. Innovation is best developed at regional and local level. However, I welcome the initiative, as far as it goes.
Innovation is not simply a question of providing £1 million and thinking that that will suffice. Companies ought to be sufficiently well funded to feel that they have the right to fail. Recently the National Theatre bravely staged a play called "Ghetto". A lot of money was spent on it. It was unlikely to be a box office success. If the reviews had been had and if audiences had not turned up,

the whole season at the National Theatre would have been put at risk. Theatre companies should not have to risk a whole season in that way. The right to fail and to experiment must be built into their budgets.
The very brave work that Annie Castledine has been doing at the Derby Playhouse does not easily attract audiences, but audiences are being built up for it. The critical appreciation is enormous. Local audiences are responding, so work of that sort needs to be backed. A theatre that has no room for the sort of work that Annie Castledine is doing at Derby is not a theatre which is in good shape.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way to guarantee box office success is to reduce income tax? It has been reduced from 83 per cent. to 40 per cent. People now have some money to spend on the arts.

Mr. Fisher: The Government are always telling us that people now have very much more money in their pockets, but spending on the arts by audiences is not necessarily the answer to the problem. Most of the companies that I am talking about, which play to large audiences, cannot increase their box office revenue. The Royal Opera House is playing to 96 to 97 per cent. capacity audiences.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Of course it plays to 96 per cent. capacity audiences. That is because 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the seat price is paid for by the rest of us.

Mr. Fisher: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want there to be success at the box office, and 96 per cent. or 97 per cent. at the box office is a good indication of how popular the Royal Opera House and English National Opera programmes are. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome popular success, but it seems that he is never satisfied.
The real reason for these problems is that the Government are hoist on their policy of relying on the private sector and market forces. I remind the Minister yet again about his statement to the conference at Newcastle of the Council of Regional Arts Associations. I hope that he will take this opportunity to say that he has changed his mind and that that statement is no longer Government policy. He said:
The objective of this Government is to reduce the role of the state.
Is that still the Government's objective? If so, I suspect that he has had great success, because most companies reckon that they are getting less state support. However, that is not in the interests of innovation or quality, or of widening access to the arts, even though that is his ambition.
The Minister went on to say:
Too many in the arts world have yet to be weaned away from the welfare state mentality.
I do not believe that they ever had such a mentality. People in the arts world have always fought for audiences. They are very keen to increase their audiences. Performing artistes want as many people as possible to see their work. I think that they found that remark deeply offensive and deeply insulting.
Is it still the Government's view that a welfare state mentality still exists in the arts? I hope that the Minister will rise to his feet and say that that is not so—that he recognises that the arts are very good at marketing


themselves and selling themselves to audiences. The Minister seems to be reluctant to take the opportunity I have offered to him to take back a remark that does him no credit. I regret that he does not intend to do so. The arts world will regret it, too, and note the reality of the Government's attitude, beneath all their fine words.
As for funding, the Minister said that three times as much money is devoted now to the arts as in the 1960s. Of course it is, but the demand is much greater and there are many more Arts Council and regional arts association clients. The expansion of the arts has been enormous. However, can the Minister name one arts client who is getting more money now and who feels that the opportunities are greater as a result of central Government policy and funding? Can he name a single company—the Royal Shakespeare theatre or the National theatre, perhaps—that is prepared to go on record and say that it is better off now than it was before, thanks to the Government; that it is able to mount more programmes; that it is able to do more interesting and innovative work and that it is able to employ better designers and expand its activities?

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman seems to be coming round to making the case for a centralised arts policy. He has not yet answered the question that my right hon. Friend put to him earlier: whether the Labour party is still committed to an arm's-length policy. Does he still believe in the policy, advocated by his predecessor, of a centralised system, on the basis that he who pays the piper calls the tune? That appears to be the policy that the Labour party advocates. It would pay for the arts and determine what is done by the arts.

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman should know what Labour policy is because he has been taking part in these debates for a long time. Labour party policy is that there should be an expansion of the arts at local authority level, in response to what local communities, local audiences and local artists want. There should be real devolution. The arts should be encouraged at local authority level by making the arts, for the first time ever, a statutory responsibility of local authorities. The arts are just as important as housing, social services or libraries. That is the way to expand the arts. That is a genuine devolution. It is not centralisation. However, the Government want to control the arts through the Arts Council. They want to control the arts from the centre.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself now. He said earlier that companies should have the right to put on whatever productions they want, that they should have the right to fail and that we should subsidise them, even if nobody wants to see their productions. Now he is saying that he wants the arts to be funded at local level so that people can be given what they want. If people want something, they will go and see it. If they do not want it, they will not go and see it. Which way does he want it to be?

Mr. Fisher: I thought that I had made the Labour party's policy quite clear. We believe in expansion at local authority level by placing on local authorities a statutory responsibility for the arts and by funding the arts through

the rate support grant. There would then be a flowering of activity in response to local needs. That would be genuine devolution. The response would be different, because different communities would have different arts needs. The needs in Gloucester, Cheltenham, Glasgow—even in Grantham—will be different. That would be a truly local policy which would be welcomed by the arts world.
It is interesting to note that neither the Minister nor any of his Back Benchers can name a single company that believes that it is better off after 10 years of Conservative Government. That says it all. The Minister always talks about sponsorship and makes great play of it. He refers to the admirable gifts of people such as Lord Sainsbury, Mr. Clore and Mr. Getty. He should also pay tribute perhaps to Mr. Annenberg at the National gallery.
The Minister has missed the point about sponsorship. In France, private sector sponsorship is far greater than it is here. The reason is that the French Government believe in an arts policy. They are prepared to fund the arts. That attracts individual sponsors. Why should the corporate sector fund the arts when the Government do not have confidence in the importance of an arts policy? When he calculates his European figures, in the Policy Studies Institute study, I hope that they will include sponsorship. That would prove my point that private sector funding of the arts is much greater in those countries where the Government take a lead and say that they believe in funding the arts. That gives confidence to the private sector and a context within which the private sector can work.
The Government are totally at odds with audiences, with what is happening at local authority level and with what is happening in Europe and further afield. The Prime Minister is apparently taking an interest now in the arts. She has not yet exhibited her interest, but I am told that her speeches are beginning to include little phrases, written for her by other people, about how good and important the arts are. I welcome that. I hope that she will go to the theatre or to a concert—even a pop concert. It would be very interesting to see her there. Until she shows a personal interest in the arts, people will treat her statements with some scepticism. The Prime Minister and the Government display a grudging attitude to the arts. They say, "Let somebody else do it." We applaud what is happening in the arts, but the Government appear to be saying that they want somebody else to be responsible for the arts. The Minister commented in his infamous Newcastle speech:
The arts world must accept the economic and political climate in which we operate.
The arts world does not accept it. It does not like it, and I suspect that people throughout the arts are casting their votes against the Government at the polls today because of their poor policies.
I conclude by referring the Minister to a quote from Bernard Shaw's "Back to Methuselah", in which, in act 1, the serpent says to Adam,
You see things and you say why? But I dream things that never were and I say why not?'
The Government ask themselves why they should fund the arts, but we—and the country will show that it is with us—ask: why not? The arts are a vital part of our local and national life and identity and deserve to be funded. The Government should recognise the success that is our country's arts and heritage, and should acknowledge the country's mood and back them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the debate must finish at 7 o'clock. As many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, I hope that contributions will be brief.

5 pm

Sir Hugh Rossi: My right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I do not follow him in his opening the debate on the arts but instead open the second subject for debate, our heritage. In that respect, the first report from the Environment Select Committee, "Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments", is relevant, and I regret that it has taken two and half years since publication for it to come before the House in today's debate. A year after that report's publication, a response by the Department of the Environment was published on 20 January 1988, including replies from the standing conference of deans and provosts of English cathedrals and from the dean and chapter of Ely cathedral.
Generally speaking, the Select Committee report was warmly welcomed. In a letter to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, as well as indicating his approval of much of the contents of the report, commented:
On those matters where we have not felt able to follow your suggestions you should not feel that the door is necessarily closed for all time. We shall naturally keep our legislative and administrative procedures under review and will remain receptive to imaginative, new ideas for the conservation and preservation of our heritage.
I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the past two and a half years with matters which have remained outstanding since the Select Committee report and the Government's response.
The Select Committee raised three main issues, as well as a number of miscellaneous matters. Those main issues were the multiplicity of agencies responsible for heritage, the listing and scheduling system for buildings and monuments, and the allocation of financial resources for heritage purposes. The Committee found that the existing multiplicity of agencies with overlapping responsibilities resulted in a dissipation of energies. That was among the matters that we said should be examined, and we recommended that more powers and responsibilities—and, it follows, more resources—should be devolved to English Heritage.
The Committee concluded, and the Government agreed, that too little weight was placed on tourism relating to historic buildings and ancient monuments. In his letter to me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remarked:
Better public access and increased numbers of tourists can … make a significant contribution to the upkeep and preservation of the heritage by providing income and enhanced public awareness. But if the longer term effects are to be positive, it is important that tourism is properly managed and controlled. This requires a degree of expertise and close liaison between the various agencies involved, both nationally and locally. The Government is pursuing these objectives …
In the 18 months since that letter was written, how far have the Government progressed in pursuing those objectives on which the Select Committee and the Government were wholly in agreement?
The Select Committee found that the listing of historic buildings was basically sound, but recommended that that responsibility be transferred to English Heritage together

with the power to serve building preservation notices—which it already has in respect of London. I regret that, so far, the Government have not thought it right to adopt that particular recommendation, on the ground of political accountability. Nevertheless, we could still raise such matters in the House even though, in the view of the Select Committee, English Heritage should be given prime responsibility.
As to the scheduling of ancient monuments, in the light of very recent experience, the Committee's recommendations are even more relevant today. Earlier this afternoon there was a private notice question on the subject of the Rose theatre. The Committee suggested that the Government should ensure that areas of archaeological importance were extended. Where such areas are declared under an arrangement between local and central Government, prior notice would be required for any operation which disturbed the ground in the area concerned—including flooding and tipping as well as development. Thereafter, a team could be appointed with the power to enter and investigate, and to excavate the site for up to four months. Alternatively, the team could hold a watching brief while the development progressed.
It is possible that in the case of the Rose theatre such an arrangement would have been unnecessary, because we and the country were fortunate that the developers involved took a very responsible attitude to the discovery, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment moved in with £1 million to enable the developers to investigate what measures were necessary to preserve the Rose, which they did with very satisfactory results, having regard to the special situation.
What would have been the outcome if a responsible developer had not been involved in that case? As city centres are redeveloped as part of inner city regeneration, it is likely that many other important remains will be uncovered. What is the Government's current view both of funding to rescue archaeology and of the protection of sites of outstanding historical importance? I emphasise again that we cannot always be sure that redevelopment will be in the hands of responsible developers.
The Select Committee's third major point concerned the financing of our heritage. We were critical of the fact that grants could be applied only when the building qualified as "outstanding". We feel that all grade I buildings without exception should qualify for grant automatically, or they should not be grade I in the first place.
The matter which caused the greatest controversy and which the media enjoyed more than anything else was the suggestion that cathedrals which are not subject to grant should become subject to grant once they had shown that they had done everything in their power to raise the necessary funds for the maintenance, repair and restoration of their buildings. We had the temerity to suggest that perhaps for tourists, as distinct from worshippers—they can readily be defined—there should be a charge of at least £1 per person. In putting forward that suggestion, we realised that we were touching a sensitive area as some people say that there should not be a charge to enter the House of God. As one who likes to attend church regularly, I understand that sentiment. However, we are not talking about people from the locality of the cathedral, for whom a part can always be set aside, but about chara-trippers who arrive in multitudes and by the mere weight of their feet and the probing of


their fingers cause perhaps as much erosion of the fabric of the cathedral as the exterior suffers through acid rain, which is the subject of another report upon which I shall not dwell now.

Mr. Fisher: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be extremely apprehensive to hear the hon. Gentleman talking about a charge for tourists. How on earth can one distinguish between tourists and residents? Have not tourists the right to worship and pray in cathedrals? When considering funding, did his Committee look at the experience of Germany and other European countries where the state provides some funding through the taxation system and gets around the problem of making a totally impossible distinction between those who wish to pray and those who wish to look at a museum?

Sir Hugh Rossi: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not had the advantage of studying the report, although it has been in the Library for two and a half years. We went to Germany to look at the German experience, which involves one third funding from central Government, one third from local government and one third from voluntary subscriptions. If the hon. Gentleman had read the reasons that we received from the deans and provosts of English cathedrals and from the dean and chapter of Ely cathedral, he might have thought a little before leaping in with the question that he has just asked. The dean and chapter of Ely cathedral wrote:
It is not our experience, after nearly two years of weekday admission charges at Ely, that an entrance charge militates against the character of a Cathedral as a House of God. On the contrary, the prayer board at the far end of the charging area upon which visitors are encouraged to leave intercessions to be used at daily Evensong, has been so full of prayers during the past summer that it has been an embarrassment to recite them adequately at the Service.
Moreover, our experience of charging is that visitors stay far longer in the cathedral having come for a deliberate visit rather than using the buildings as a wet weather call. Problems of noisy parties rushing through the building in ten minutes and of misconduct of bored visitors have practically disappeared.
That is the experience of one cathedral that has followed the advice given by the Select Committee. The practice predated the Committee. That experience prompted us to include the suggestion and recommendation in our report.
The consequence is that Ely cathedral, although it is not on the usual tourist route as York and Durham are, now has an annual fund available to follow a programme of proper maintenance and repair to its building and a surplus which it sends to the diocesan fund. The Select Committee recommendation was that if the popular cathedrals—in tourist terms—were to adopt that policy, the surplus could then be used to set up a national fund for the preservation of those cathedrals which are off the tourist beaten track.
I realise that that view is not shared by every dean and chapter of every cathedral. The pious hope expressed by the provosts is:
it is the pastoral task of a cathedral to turn tourists into visitors, visitors into guests, guests into pilgrims, and pilgrims into worshippers.
That is a laudable ambition, but whether it has much relation to the way in which tourists react today is open to question. We rely very much on the experience of one cathedral which has had the courage to follow that course

and has solved its financial problems without in any way detracting from the nature of the cathedral or causing any disturbance whatsoever to the worshippers.

Mr. Heffer: I find what the hon. Gentleman said fascinating. As a member of the Church, I would strongly object to anyone having to pay to enter our cathedrals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I visit Italy regularly. Perhaps he knows more about this than I do, but I can think of no cathedral or church that I have visited—I go to as many as I can—in Venice or anywhere else in Italy where one has to pay. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can point one out to me.

Sir Hugh Rossi: One in Venice immediately comes to mind—Santa Maria Maggiore, Vergine, or some similar name—and I have a photograph of a plaque outside saying that visitors are requested to put 1,500 lire in the box on entering.

Mr. Heffer: It must have been the one I missed.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Perhaps it was.

Mr. Heffer: Is it on the island?

Sir Hugh Rossi: If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to arrange the funds for a visit, I would be happy to join him and point the church out to him.
I shall leave that point as it is not strictly a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the church authorities, who must decide for themselves what to do. I raised the matter because the question has crossed my mind more than once in relation to the problems faced by Hereford cathedral, which has refused to follow Ely and impose a charge. The money needed for repairs could not be raised by appeal. It then went through the dreadful experience over Mappa Mundi and failed to raise money. Its appeal has failed and it is now in dire straits financially. It does not know which way to turn, but perhaps Ely has pointed the way.

Mr. Michael Foot: The Minister spoke not with complacency but with astonishing insensitivity for the feelings of many people in the arts world and beyond. It is strange that he should have spoken in that tone, because he referred to the general background in which a Minister for the Arts has to operate. He is concerned not only with artistic matters but with the cultural background of the country. It is astonishing that a Minister in that position should speak in such a tone. He has only to use his eyes, ears and intelligence—I am sure he has all three—to find out what is being said in many different circles.
The Minister referred to the universities and the new examination. I am sure that I meet a different type of person at universities from the right hon. Gentleman and others. My experience is that there is more depression and lower morale in the universities than at any time I can remember, except when the Government were pushing through their Bill affecting universities and threatening action against them. Those threats were partly withdrawn at the last moment. Even the universities with the best funding are complaining about depression and low morale.
Fewer people will be recruited as history teachers in universities. The brain drain is happening. If anybody


cares to read the details, there was another report in The Guardian yesterday. Anyone who does not understand the depression in the universities does not understand the real mood among academics in this country.
A more obvious example, to which the Minister also referred, is broadcasting. Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that there is confidence within those circles, that morale is high and that they are sharing in the supposed great fruits of 10 years of wonderful industrial and economic progress? There is no such mood. There is a mood of fright and alarm. If the Minister cared to open the newspapers, he could read about that almost every day.
There is also the strike at the BBC. There was a much bigger response to strike action than most people had calculated. It is just one expression of the feeling inside the BBC. The morale within the BBC is even worse than that in private companies. It is alarmed at what the Government intend to do, and it has every right to be alarmed. An excellent article in The Independent described the widespread, corrosive fears of privatisation within the BBC and how it thinks it is being pushed in that direction. If the Minister does not think that that is the mood, he should talk to some of the people in charge. He should also talk to those who manage his financial affairs. He is supposed to be one of the great experts because of the way in which he responds to questions by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The BBC overseas service is one of the finest institutions in the country. It has to grapple with the Government's refusal and failure year after year to match the inflation rate with the money they provide. If the Minister disputes the figures, he has not listened to the people who do the job. The overseas service is magnificent: hon. Members on both sides of the House say that constantly whenever we debate it.
Those who run the overseas service make the best possible use of the small resources available. I am not criticising the people who run it. However, the Government, by implication, are constantly criticising because they are constantly squeezing the amount available to spend. Therefore, in the past few years the overseas service has had to be restricted in many ways. There has been a good example of that in the past week. I am sure that millions of people across China would have been eager to hear the BBC reports on the circumstances there. However, fewer people in China are able to hear those reports than some years ago. That is partly because of the financial squeeze. The BBC has hardly enough money to place telephone calls to China, let alone to provide a broadcast service in that part of the world.
It is not a laughing matter. The Government should be considering a major expansion of the money allocated to the BBC overseas service and the BBC generally so that it can overcome the shockingly low morale that exists. The BBC is one of the best institutions in the country. The Prime Minister cannot bear to see an organisation that has performed well for the nation over the years. She has always got to see whether she can shake it up or change it. She has already shown what a catastrophe such action can cause by the changes in the National Health Service. The same thing has happened with the universities and broadcasting. In the face of all that, it is wrong for the Minister to be so complacent.
I seek to reply to those general arguments because they were raised by the Minister. Usually in such debates my

hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) is present to put his arguments. He is not here today because of illness, so he cannot give us his assistance. However, he has done the next best thing by producing a book on the subject. I am sure that it has been read by all Opposition Members but some Conservative Members may not have completed their education. I recommend it most strongly. It is entitled "Glasnost in Britain". It is published by Macmillan and edited by Norman Buchan and Tricia Sumner. It is a fine book and gives a clearer picture of what has happened in the past 10 years than anything we have heard from the Minister.
The articles in the book cover the many different themes that are relevant to the debate, but I shall quote a sentence prophylactically. It is from an article by the Earl of Stockton. I know that his grandfather is not regarded favourably by the Government but I hope that they will not visit the sins of the grandfather on the grandson, particularly when he has written an excellent and witty article. He has inherited his grandfather's gift in that respect. The Earl of Stockton warns about VAT on books and says that that issue has not yet been settled. He wants to ensure that it is settled. I should like an absolute assurance from the Government that there will be no retreat on VAT on books.
The excellent article says:
There is a certain Orwellian irony that the last time we defended the printed word was in 1984.
He was referring to the campaign in 1984 to fend off the imposition of VAT on books. He goes on to say:
There are those who say that the book trade is unduly alarmist. Well, I am not a hysteric, but nor am I an ostrich. The threat of taxation on the printed word is not only unnecessary, uneconomic and essentially illiberal, but the mechanisms of its impositions are, I suspect, probably corrupt and tyrannical in the most insidious fashion".
The article elaborates that case.
I hope that the Government will now give us an absolute assurance that, whatever happens and whatever the dispute is about, whether or not it is about how the new Common Market is to be dealt with, there will be no departure from the absolute undertaking that there will be no VAT on books and that the Government are not prepared to allow that to go through.
That article should be circulated to every Government Member. I am sure that, on that matter at least, the Minister for the Arts will agree with what I am saying and he is the best person to know how many of his Cabinet colleagues need educating on the subject.
Let me come now to a more major matter that concerns the right hon. Gentleman. About a year ago, in a debate on the arts, we discussed whether the amounts of money that the museums had to spend had been properly increased over the previous few years, whatever might be the promise for the next year or two. As I recall, at that time we had just had the report from the independent committee which had investigated those matters. It showed that, just as there has been a squeeze on the BBC, the universities and others, so a squeeze had been put on the museums. By not making up their money to cover inflation, the Government were, in effect, imposing a cut. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that that report discussed how museum staff throughout Britain were having to bear the burden of the Government's failure to deal with such matters.
In case the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he does not have any special responsibility in such matters, let me


make the point even more directly. He referred to the Victoria and Albert museum. In a year when there has been such a crisis in that institution, the right hon. Gentleman's references to the subject were derisory. He did not even attempt to discuss the major questions. It is no good him saying that he has mentioned them on other occasions so that there is no need to do so again. He made one reference to the museum, but he did not make any reference to the crisis there. Does he deny that there is a crisis? If he does, he should study the debate that took place in the other place on 22 and 23 March on that subject initiated by Lord Annan. I am sure that he has done so already, but I invite other hon. Members to do so.
The noble Lord Annan is not a scaremonger, but he was outraged by what had happened at the Victoria and Albert museum, and he used many pertinent and potent phrases to describe it. He said that the way in which some of the people had been sacked was vulgar and brutal. He used a series of further words to describe the situation—charges with which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have had some sympathy. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman, or any civilised hon. Member, could think that to sack people in the way that they were was the proper way in which to act.
But the background to the matter affects the right hon. Gentleman even more directly. The noble Lord Annan gave details of the Victoria and Albert museum's finances, which showed that its crisis was largely provoked by the lack of money. If the right hon. Gentleman questions what I say, he need only read what the noble Lord Annan said. He did not just give his own figures. He said:
However, there is a far more serious charge for the Government to face. The deputy chairman of the trustees, Sir Michael Butler, tells us that the finances of the Victoria and Albert have been cut each year for the past 13 years by 3 per cent. Now the Government are not honouring the pay awards to which they are a party … By 1992, so I understand, the V &amp; A will be in deficit unless it gets rid of staff. Is that one reason why eight curatorial staff have been asked to take voluntary retirement?
He went on:
I call this policy dishonest and dishonourable".
Those charges are serious and they were sustained by many others who spoke in the debate. No one need take my word for that; they can read the speeches of the noble Lords who supported the noble Lord Annan.
At least the Government's policy towards the Victoria and Albert has made a great contribution to Britain's anthology of invective. The mastery of invective shown in the other place to describe what had happened in the Victoria and Albert was considerable. As I have said, the noble Lord Annan presented the case strongly, but I think that the prize should go to the noble Lord Goodman, who certainly knows something about these matters, and neither the right hon. Gentleman nor anybody else should try to push aside what he had to say. He described what had happened in a paragraph which must have caused a shudder throughout the other place. I shall not quote it now, but anyone who says that I am exaggerating should read that debate. I promise that they will not have any difficulty in doing so because the case against what was done was stated by masters of the English language.
The Government had two replies and two spokesmen in that debate. Neither replied on the question of the money, the one that affects the right hon. Gentleman. Neither

replied to the charge made by the noble Lord Annan, and sustained by others, that the real money that can be spent on maintaining the museum—some of its money goes on repairs, and so on—has been cut and cut, and that, under the prospective plans, there will be still further cuts. The Government made no consistent or reputable reply to that charge, despite the fact that they answered in two different ways. On one happly occasion—again, if anyone thinks that I am exaggerating he can read the debate—the two Government spokesmen found themselves repudiating each other because they got mixed up about who had given the orders to the trustees and those who run the Victoria and Albert to sack the people involved.
Even at the end of the debate, there was no agreement between the noble Lord Armstrong and the other Government spokesmen about who had given the instructions. The noble Lord Armstrong is an interesting spokesman on the subject. He has a reputation of being, in that famous phrase, economical with the truth. I do not wish to make any such platitudinous reference. He almost has a taste for extravagant platitude as well. Explaining the situation, Lord Armstrong said:
There is some suggestion that we are all appointed with some undisclosed and sinister mandate from the Prime Minister. We are of course all appointed by the Prime Minister because that is how Parliament said that we should be appointed in the National Heritage Act".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1989; Vol. 505, c. 766–97.]
It is perfectly true that a decision was made along those lines, but nobody then thought that the Prime Minister's power of appointment would be used so swiftly in such a critical case as this to appoint someone such as Lord Armstrong. He is certainly one of them—in that sense, he has great qualifications—but his appointment was bound to give rise to anxieties among the people who run the museum.
If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is nonsense and that I am exaggerating the importance of the matter, he should have taken the opportunity to say what will happen at the Victoria and Albert. Is the right hon. Gentleman merely going to accept the fait accompli imposed by Lord Armstrong and others with the approval, concurrence and incitement of the Prime Minister?
If anyone questions what I say, I invite them to read the article written on this subject by someone who knows far more about the Victoria and Albert museum than anyone in this House, or in the other place, and far more than Lord Armstrong, Lord Carrington and the others who were appointed for a year or two. That article was written for the New York Review of Books and I am glad to say that The Guardian republished it in this country. That article on what has happened to one of our greatest museums represents the most serious discussion on it that has been published in the whole of the controversy.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the article and I am sure that his civil servants gave it to him. If that is so, what is the Minister's answer to it? The article is entitled "The Fall of a Great Museum" and it was written by John Pope-Hennessy. He had great experience at that museum and at other museums since. I have not heard anyone—not even a Government Whip—try to blacken the reputation of John Pope-Hennessy and his right to speak on such matters.
Anyone who reads that article will see that it adds up to an appalling indictment of the Government's misuse of power. It outlines the extremely serious consequences for


the future of the museum. I shall give one quote from many. He talks of the danger of sacking people of such qualification and says:
If the dismissals are persisted the Victoria"—

Mr. Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I appreciate his interest in this matter, but he has been speaking for 20 mintues. This is a short debate and, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that many of us still want to speak.

Mr. Foot: I do not believe that that is a point of order, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me proceed.
The serious charge in the article reads:
If the dismissals are persisted the Victoria and Albert will be more ignorant than at any other period in this century.
The museum relies on the advice of its experts. The article concludes:
When universities are starved of funds there is no means by which members of the public can assess the consequences, but when a vast museum with an international reputation is reduced to an object of ridicule, the result is all too evident. To repair the damage and to get the museum once more into decent working order, some form of special grant may be required, but it will be justified because in its future not only the fate of a magnificent collection, but national self-respect is inescapably involved.
The Minister is as directly responsible as anyone in government and he should give us the reassurances and the funds required so that this appalling catastrophe—the fall of a great museum—is remedied.
I happened to go to Paris last week and I saw what has been done at the new musée d'Orsay. We have some magnificent museums, but anyone who has seen what has been done in France in the past four years could not quarrel too much about the extra money that would be required to bring our museums up to the French standard. The President has some understanding of such matters and the French have created a magnificent new museum in which some of the greatest treasures of French art will be displayed. The French Government are wise enough to know that no single investment since 1945 compares with their investment in that museum.
The Victoria and Albert museum has every right and claim to be a wonderful organisation. In this tenth year of the Prime Minister's operations, the Government should compare what has happened this year to the Victoria and Albert with the new museum in France; they should take that comparison to heart.
I apologise to other hon. Members, but I want to say something further about a matter that is still of great importance to this House and which should be watched with great care—the Rose theatre. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) on his vigilance in this matter. I do not believe that the question is settled yet. The Secretary of State for the Environment today seemed uncertain about whether it was an importance matter after all. He demurred from making such a claim. He does not normally show such bashfulness or parade his humility, but today he said that he did not wish to be too assertive about whether the Rose theatre was such a treasure after all.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the appeals that have been made for that theatre. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has visited the site and has heard the direct appeals from people such as Dame Peggy Ashcroft and others who have spoken so

eloquently upon the matter. I assure Ministers that those people will continue to campaign until the matter is settled properly.
If Ministers have any doubts about the theatre, I commend to them the last paragraph of the article on this subject that appeared in The Times Literary Supplement of last week:
The Rose is a unique phenomenon. Its dates put it, and the changes Henslowe made to it, at the height of the evolution of the Elizabethan playhouse design, neatly disposed between the Theatre of 1576 in Shoreditch, which gave up its timber frame to make the original Globe, and the Swan and Globe alongside the Rose in 1595 and 1599. It gave Marlowe his early chance, and he gave it the first great stage successes of the London theatre. It may well have been Shakespeare's own training ground. In the last three months"—
I stress, three months—
theatre historians have been given more fresh and utterly reliable information about the design of the Shakespearean stage than they have managed to scrape together from written-sources in the past three centuries. To lose it would be a new kind of Shakespearean tragedy.
It is our business in this House to ensure that that tragedy does not occur. We have not had such assurance from the right hon. Gentleman yet. I am sure that people in all constituencies and the leaders of the theatre world, Dame Peggy Ashcroft at their head, will make certain that that new Shakespearean tragedy shall not be permitted.

Mr. Timothy Raison: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has just referred to the creation of the musée d'Orsay in Paris. Anyone who has seen it would agree that it is a fantastic museum. The right hon. Gentleman's contribution was characteristic of the Opposition as it showed a total lack of appreciation of the outstanding successes being achieved in the arts and the current strength of the British arts.
I, too, was in Paris just a few days ago when the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, of which I am lucky enough to be Chairman, was considering the French museums. We saw the great achievements, but we also heard that the position regarding acquisitions is worse for the great French museums than it is for the great British museums. There are also other respects in which the French look to us rather wistfully, one of them being the amount of private support and private patronage that we have been able to generate in our system.
If we recognise the greatness of the musée d'Orsay and dwell with fascination upon the pyramid at the Louvre—both great achievements—we can also talk enthusiastically of what is about to happen to the National gallery and the arrival of the Tate in Liverpool. We can also talk about the Burrell collection and the Clore gallery. We have many things in this country of which we can be proud and in relation to which the Government have played a full part.
Obviously, I do not accept the point of view of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who talked about a cultural balance sheet but then made it clear that he was interested only in public expenditure. Although that is not right, I believe profoundly that the state is a crucial provider of the arts and would not accept for one moment that any other argument makes sense. We have achieved a good balance between public and private provision. That strategy has been developed effectively in recent years and long may it continue.
One cannot help thinking of the enormous contributions made by people who are not essentially part of the state apparatus. One such person was Robin Howard, who died a day or two ago and who made a unique contribution to British contemporary dance. Those who knew him knew that he was a buccaneer, not a bureaucrat. A system that allows for that while also providing a national theatre of the present quality is well founded.
In the last couple of years, we in London have been privileged to see more great paintings than I imagine have ever been open to view in our history. We have had a succession of marvellous exhibitions, covering many different types of works of art. Often they have appeared in places such as the National gallery or the Hayward, to which I pay tribute, but such exhibitions have also been sponsored by our large industrial companies.
Such partnerships seem to work also for the good of those people who are lucky enough to be able to see the things that we can see in London. My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly emphasised what is happening in other parts of the country. Indeed, that was an important element in the Art Council's famous policy document of a year or two ago.
The wonderful developments in touring opera in this country have already been mentioned. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central talked about the difficulties encountered by Kent Opera. Today, as throughout the past, a feature of supporting the arts is that one encounters ups and downs. We shall never have—I certainly hope that we do not—a position in which one can simply collect a cheque from the powers that be without anybody discussing it.
Against that, we have an array of astonishingly good opera companies. I have been lucky enough to see two of them in the past few days. One was Opera 80 which did an absolutely magnificent production of "Figaro" and the other was Pavilion Opera, which has just had a coup in performing in Versailles and, unusually, with an orchestra rather than with the gifted pianist who normally accompanies the company. I gather that all Paris thought that that was the cat's whiskers, or whatever the French equivalent may be. That shows the strength and diversity of what we can see in this country at present.
At the local level I am engaged in an exercise to upgrade Buckinghamshire's county museum. The local county council is taking a sympathetic view. Again, good things are happening in other parts of the country as well as in the capital.
The Government's funding policy is not directed at supporting only the classical and traditional arts. It is genuinely designed to allow the avant garde to flourish, even if occasionally that may cause some slight embarrassment to Ministers. Indeed, such occurrences are very good for Ministers. We are in a strong position.
The Arts Council very much appreciates its three-year funding, although there is a problem with inflation. We all know perfectly well that inflation is now running at a higher rate than any of us would have wished. When the Select Committee of which I am Chairman looked at that matter, we decided that the possibility of inflation was a price worth paying for the certainty, security and ability to plan. We felt that the benefits of the three-year funding scheme outweighed the risks of inflation. However, we also

stated that if things got out of hand we hoped that the scheme could be reconsidered. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to have a three-year funding policy and to stick to it.
As another sign of the Government's support for the arts, I must add that as a vice-chairman of the British Council I am delighted that this year the council is receiving an extra £6 million of new money. That is welcome in our work to present the excellence of British arts in other parts of the world. The picture is encouraging in many ways.
I should like to draw the attention of the Labour party to what happened with the abolition of the Greater London council and of the metropolitan county councils. Those who sat through the prolonged debates and listened to the saga of grief, horror and angst that was portrayed by the opponents of our provisions, who said that we would be destroying the arts in London and in the other great metropolitan areas, must now face the fact that the record shows that, far from arts funding declining following abolition, it has increased. That is clearly the view of the Arts Council and can be seen from the statistics given in evidence to the Select Committee. I confess that over time it will become harder to tell what the real picture is because those statistics cannot be used for ever. However, it is clear that there has been an increase rather than a decrease in support for the arts.
I am happy to note that the credit for that lies with local government in particular. As one had always believed would happen, the successor local authorities have not said, "We are not interested in the arts and will do nothing about them"; with help from central Government they have picked up the shortfall that would otherwise have occurred. Again, that supports the premise that the Labour party is too interested in alarmism and is not sufficiently willing to look at the facts.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to the importance of broadcasting to the life of the arts. We know perfectly well that the BBC is a major and fundamental provider of the arts in this country. Although like any institution it has its ups and downs, nevertheless we accept that it has generally been devoted to quality. Important reassurances have recently been given by the Government that the crucial instruments will remain as they are. We have now had the announcement about the future of Channel 4, which seems a fairly good safeguard to ensure the quality of that important station. It is clear that the review of broadcasting will not leave the BBC as a whole in a weakened position. There is every reason to believe that Channel 2 will continue to be a major provider of the arts. We must watch carefully to see what happens in relation to radio. However, I believe that the Government's decisions on broadcasting will ensure that our heritage in broadcasting presentation of the arts will be preserved.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts rightly paid tribute to the way in which the Secretary of State for Education and Science has brought forward the national curriculum. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the fact that art and music are clearly specified as being among the guaranteed subjects in the national curriculum. However, I accept that there is a problem with music because the shortage of music teachers looks like being serious. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is considering the issue of supply teachers in the 1990s at the moment and I hope that we shall be able to make


some constructive and useful comments. If my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts knows of any ways in which he can support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in this matter, I hope that he will do so. It is absolutely right to spread music through the curriculum and I hope and believe that we can make a success of that.
What we are seeing today in the arts is a richness previously unparalleled in this country. Last summer I visited Siena. In the cathedral museum I read an account of how, when Duccio had finished painting the Maesta, that supreme work of art, it was carried in triumph through the streets of Siena and the whole town had three days' holiday. That is the desirable ultimate objective that I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to achieve. In the meanwhile, and even if it takes a year or two to bring about, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he is doing and wish him all power to his elbow.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The theme of what I want—briefly—to say concerns tension between culture and commerce, which has been exercising my mind for some weeks.
I do not think that anyone would have put much money on the likelihood of the Rose theatre being the subject of an Adjournment debate and two statements in the House within a couple of months, nor was it predictable that our cultural heritage would be the lead item on the national news for several days. Thankfully, however, that has happened—at the same time, interestingly, as the struggle not hundreds of miles away to find a way of preserving the Mappa Mundi for the people of Hereford. I have an interest in that issue too, because my family comes from the area and I occasionally slip hack to involve myself in that struggle as a change from concentrating exclusively on matters on the south side of the Thames.
The bit of north Southwark which has been in the news recently is, of course, an enormously important part of our national cultural heritage. Not only is it the origin of the pilgrims' journey in "The Canterbury Tales" and the place where Shakespearean England had its most glorious flowering, but it later became the centre of Dickens' world and has been home to many other important authors and artists.
It is interesting to reflect that the current issue of whether the Rose theatre should be scheduled, and how it should be preserved, began with the archaeologists. Academics and authors had predicted that the Rose theatre might be found—as well as the Hope, Swan and Globe—but it took the archaeologists to produce the goods. Archaeology in Britain is considerably underfunded, including rescue archaeology, which should be a preliminary to all development. Of course all that is found cannot always be preserved in this capital city or anywhere else, but we need the mechanism to discover what is there and then to evaluate its importance, which requires well-funded archaeological services. My plea is for better funding in the future.
We have come a long way. Without the Greater London archaeology service we probably would not have found the remains of the Rose. Thirty years ago, in the 1950s, when a previous office block was built in Park street, archaeological investigation did not happen and the Rose was not discovered. The progress that has been made

should encourage us, and it should also encourage the Government. The warm response elicited by the excavation and by many others recently should lead the Government to believe that funding such activities more generously from the public purse would be a good investment.
In paragraph 139 of its report on historic buildings and ancient monuments, which is one of the documents informing our debate, the Environment Select Committee recommended that
the Secretary of State should initiate consultations with local authorities with a view to establishing further AAIs"—
that is, areas of archaeological importance. The report is dated January 1987, and the Government response was published in January 1988. The Government were not convinced then—a year and a half ago—that further designations would be justified. They said that they were undertaking a survey of the five areas already so designated. Significantly, those areas—Canterbury, York, Chester, Exeter and Hereford—are five of our most splendid cities and are of enormous archaeological interest.
I have corresponded with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and her predecessor about this and I plead with the Government not to give up the mechanism provided in the Act, so that areas of archaeological importance can continue to be designated. We have areas of listed buildings and conservation areas; areas above ground are marked out as being of particular significance, and logic dictates that the same should apply to areas that are to be unearthed. I hope that the Department's laborious researches finish soon, and that we shall receive confirmation that other areas can be designated. I include north Southwark in that hope, as I would be expected to.
I wish to deal with one or two issues relating specifically to the Rose. The Rose was, is and will continue to be a classic example of the conflict between the rights of the property owner—in this case Postel, the Post Office pensions board—along with those of the developers, Imry, and the wider interest. It was known that the Rose might be there. A 1971 report had warned that there might be a national and international outcry if, when it was discovered, it was not protected. The developers did not embark on the work in ignorance. We cannot say, "Poor developer—fancy turning up something like that unexpectedly in a car park or basement with no foreknowledge."
As evidenced by the history of the discovery of the Rose, it seems that we are still suffering from a lack of intelligent, strategic planning. Surely the logic of events should be this—first excavate, then decide what can be put on top. As the Under-Secretary of State knows, we are now in a crazy, illogical position. Imry submits its first plans and is given planning permission; the Rose theatre is subsequently discovered, and eventually Imry is persuaded not to go ahead. Ministers and English Heritage are very influential. Imry eventually submits its revised and second plans. Even after that—a week or so ago—Imry knows that some of the areas that it intends to pile are too near the theatre, and it still does not take account of the parts that we have not yet had a chance to see.
Only this week a statement was made by the chief archaeologist of English Heritage, saying that if the archaeological work to be done in the next few weeks finds more of the theatre we shall have to go back to Southwark borough council, which must then go back to the


developers to ask them to alter their plans again. It is ludicrous to dig and, if something is found, change the plans, and then dig a bit more and perhaps need to change them again.
The reason why there is such a demand for scheduling is that it would give complete protection at law to the site as now excavated, and would give it the status that it clearly deserves. I hope that the Government will change their mind, because I believe that their fear that the cost would be millions or tens of millions of pounds is not justified. There may be some further delay, and that will certainly involve some cost, but I think that a way can be found to meet the cost, and that it will not be enormous. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us the rate of any compensation that might be payable.
Nothing in either the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 or the National Heritage Act 1983 suggests that cost—or, indeed, competing commercial pressures—should be a consideration in the decision whether a site should be scheduled as a national monument. Since the ancestor of a previous colleague of mine, Lord Avebury, campaigned in the 19th century for a list of national monuments, the logic has been the same. Monuments of national importance should be scheduled so that the protection that they deserve will follow as a consequence of their appearing in that list.
The other conflict to which I referred at the outset between culture and commerce is that which has been manifesting itself in Hereford between the cathedral authorities wanting money to look after their cathedral and the commercial pressures militating in favour of selling articles of great value so as to acquire those funds.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the Chairman of the Environment Select Committee, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), about the evidence he had received from Ely cathedral. As the Minister will appreciate, many people still regard it as inappropriate for cathedrals to be among those places which one must pay to visit. I share that view, but I hope we shall not hold up the Mappa Mundi story so far as an example of how it is impossible to raise money in the private sector or from voluntary subscription for the protection of our heritage, ecclesiastical or otherwise.
I think that the Hereford cathedral authorities or their advisers—I say this respectfully, as I have said it to them personally—made a mess of it. Had they asked the public to contribute £100, rather than £1,000, they would have got far more in than they did. Had they taken up the offers of substantial gifts that had been made, they would have been well on their way to raising the money that they wanted. There is of course a national responsibility also to look after our ecclesiastical heritage through taxpayers' money, but there is also an opportunity for private sector contribution, which does not override but is consistent with those other aesthetic, religious and cultural requirements.
I hope that the end of this year's struggles between culture and commerce will be that we shall find ways of protecting the arts in a more logical and far-sighted way.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I refuse to be obsessed by the Rose theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) has made strong and effective representations about it, as no doubt has the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). A satisfactory scheme was announced this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—by which what is left of that important relic will be preserved for future generations. It will be shielded by the umbrella of a building, which will protect it from rain, snow, frost and sunshine. Some of those who have been jumping up and down about it have been going over the top, and I believe that Shakespeare would have cared more about the live theatre, to which I shall refer later.
In his excellent speech, the Minister referred to the high standards of art in Britain. I wish to draw the attention of the House to the splendid programme of summer concerts at the Royal Military School of Music, Kneller Hall, where standards remain as high as ever. British Army bands remain one of our finest traditions. They lift the spirits of the nation. Who does not feel uplifted by the sound and sight of a British Army band? They enhance morale, promote recruitment and, from an artistic point of view, provide a first-class training in the playing of musical instruments and, from an economic point of view, military bands help to attract to our shores visitors whose spending generates employment and income. That point applies to all of the arts and heritage; hence its relevance. Visitors to Britain spend not only on the arts and heritage. They also spend on shopping, hotels, restaurants and internal transport. They thereby create jobs and increase incomes. All that provides a tax yield to the Government.
It is for the arts and heritage that the visitors come. They come to our theatres, operas, ballet, concerts, museums, art galleries, art auctions, historic houses, cathedrals, abbeys, churches and to visit our countryside. They come for our history and traditions and in particular they come because of our royal family. They come to see our processions and parades and our Army bands.
They certainly do not come to Britain for the weather and, if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) were still in his place, I would have said that they certainly do not come to see our footballers. They come for our arts and heritage and they bring substantial economic benefit to our country, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) should address if he is fortunate enough to be called to take part in the debate, for he has not previously done so.
Not that economic benefit is the only reason to support the arts, because of course there are many reasons. The arts are a tremendous asset to the nation. We should build on our strengths, and that is what the Minister has done. He is doing a superb job, and the arts in Britain are flourishing as never before. Consider, for example, the London theatre. It is well patronised. It is going like a bomb. For the best plays, it is often difficult to get seats. In Britain as a whole, more people go to the theatre every week than go to football matches. The number going to the theatre is increasing steadily. But I want to raise some specific matters. One is ticket touts. Ticket touting is an unpleasant and greedy trade. It gives a bad impression to foreign visitors and I urge the Government to consider action to deal with it.
The Dominion theatre is an important theatre with 2,000 seats. It could be threatened by a planning application for development on the site. Its loss would be serious, both from an entertainment and planning point of view. I shall be writing to the Under-Secretary who will be responding to this debate, since she deals with planning matters. I realise that she will be unable to give any undertaking at this stage, but I trust that she will consider my points carefully when I have put them in writing to her.

Mr. Bowis: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the Dominion theatre in the London scene. At present, the theatre is the home of the London Festival Ballet, the English national ballet, and it and the English National Opera have another crucial problem to face—that of funding, with the change of local government finance affecting Westminster council.
My hon. Friend will be aware of the sensible arrangement that existed between the Department of the Environment and Westminster council on the abolition of the GLC, so that funding could be arranged by and continued through that council. That is no longer possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask the Under-Secretary to give an assurance that she will make sure that appropriate funding is carried on so that those two excellent companies can plan ahead with some confidence.

Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm, when she replies to the debate, that she has taken note of that important point, that she will consult the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Local Government and will try to obtain a solution to a problem which has arisen through no fault of the English National Opera and of the Dominion theatre, both of which are great assets to London and the nation. As for the National theatre, as other hon. Members want to speak, may I express the hope that the Government will continue to look sympathetically at the points raised in his Adjournment last month by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad).
We enjoy a vast range of concerts in London. Attendances at them are increasing steadily. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said that more subsidy was available in Paris. That may be so, but there are fewer concerts in Paris. What on earth is the point of having more subsidy and fewer concerts? I hope that the Government will give a fair wind to the excellent proposals of the South Bank board to develop the facilities available there.
With the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary is responsible for royal parks, such as Bushy park, which is next to Hampton Court in my constituency, where there is a magnificent avenue of chestnut trees. Those trees are greatly cherished by my constituents in Teddington, Hampton, Hampton Wick and Hampton Hill. They are greatly loved and admired. Most of them are sound, although a few were damaged in the 1987 hurricane, and a few others are diseased.
There has been a rumour that there might be a clean sweep, with a large replanting and a new start made. The Under-Secretary was kind enought to see me last month, when I put to her the strong views of my constituents that, except for stunted and badly diseased or badly damaged trees, the whole of the avenue should be retained. I ask her

again to note the strong feeling that exists about the matter and I urge her to spare this beautiful avenue of magnificent chestnut trees.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be brief. I am the last Opposition speaker except for my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and I shall give Conservative Members an opportunity to take part in the debate. If they keep their speeches brief, they will all gel: in because the winding-up speeches are to start at 20 minutes to 7.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central on his contribution. I know of his genuine interest in the arts and in our heritage. I also appreciate the interest of the Minister for the Arts, and he knows that I am interested because I am always here when I can be for arts and heritage debates and regularly ask questions. However, I am never satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's answers about the arts. I also compliment the right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary private secretary, the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who also has a particular interest. We have one massive interest between us in the arts, and that is in the cinema industry. There is much marvellous acting in the cinema and I and the hon. Gentleman frequently talk about it. Of course, I recognise his family connections in the industry and when I meet him I always ask him how his beautiful mother is getting on.
Although the Minister wants to do much, he is pinned down by public expenditure restrictions. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is always criticising local authorities about their expenditure. He does not realise that local authorities have to spend the money because of Government cuts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made that clear in the debate.
We in the beautiful county of Nottinghamshire have a real interest in the arts and in our heritage. It has some beautiful buildings and many people are interested in their preservation and in the activities that go on in the county. Nottinghamshire county council does a first-class finance job and Nottingham city council also contributes. When the beautiful theatre was built in Nottingham the Tories on the city council criticised it. Now they all make good use of it. The Tories in Nottingham always criticise Labour policies, but they make good use of the facilities that are provided.
Everything in the birthplace of D. H. Lawrence in my constituency has been preserved. It is beautiful and people come from all over the world to see it. The local authority is responsible for the upkeep because the Government do not want to know about such expenditure. However, they encourage people to come from abroad because that puts money into the Treasury. But when we ask for help to provide and preserve the proper facilities, the Government do not want to know. I know that the Minister would like to do much more than he is doing. I appeal to him to keep banging on the Treasury door, to keep getting stuck in. Let us have the money to do the things that need to be done. If the Government continue to cut the money to local authorities, we shall really suffer.
I shall finish by speaking about the Byron society in Nottinghamshire. Newstead abbey is a beautiful building.


I am a member of the Byron society, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I had a letter this week from the society's marvellous secretary, Maureen Crisp, appealing to me to buy a society tie. I reminded my right hon. Friend to send his £6·50 for his tie. I have sent for one, and I appeal to hon. Members to send for them as well. That will enable them to contribute to our heritage, and wearing it in this place will show their support for a worthy cause. At the same time they will realise that they are contributing to the preservation of our heritage, as Nottingham city council and Broxtowe borough council are doing.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I am the only authentic opposition voice in the Chamber, bearing in mind the middle-class Opposition Members who are present. I have not been to any wonderful artistic place abroad, although I got my feet wet in the Pacific about a fortnight ago.
The subsidy to the arts is approaching £500 million per annum, and the Arts Council grant increased by 10 per cent. last year to £150 million. It will approach £200 million by the end of next year. The subsidy for two people going to the theatre is almost £60, more than we pay to an unemployed man and his wife to keep themselves. They receive £56 but the middle-class couples and the arty types who want to go to the ballet and the opera receive £60 from public sources. That is a disgrace. The inflation rate last year was about 5 per cent., but we increased the arts grant by 10 per cent. We tell pensioners that pensions can only increase in line with inflation, but for so-called arts lovers the subsidy is increased by more than that so that they can indulge in personal pleasure. That is also a disgrace.
Who benefits from the subsidy? It is certainly not the poor. Those who benefit are the effective arts lobby, the professionals who milk the system, Sir Peter Hall, who got not only a knighthood but a small fortune from public sector funds, and the arts lovers who want to enjoy their pleasures—provided the rest of us subsidise them.
Why should there be subsidies? As I said before, it is said that we are subsidising our heritage. Is a fat Italian singing in his own language supposed to be part of my background? Is the ballet dancer in his female tights and cricket box supposed to be part of my heritage, the heritage of my constituents or of the average person in Britain?
People say that such performances should take place. If they are important enough to be preserved, why do people not want to pay the full price? We are told that the arts are special, but nobody has told me why that is so, or why the commercial theatre is thought to be so ordinary. Commercial entertainment is thought by arts lovers to be ordinary, yet theatres are full. Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals are packed to the doors. The difference between them and the 96 per cent. of subsidised theatres that the Opposition mentioned is that people are prepared to pay the full commercial price to see Webber's shows, while people who go to the ballet and the opera are subsidised.
Why does football have to meet the cost of crowd control while we provide survival grants for the arts? I keep asking what is the difference between the ordinary

man in the street who wants to watch professional football, which to him is an art form, and the man who watches opera and ballet? What is so unusual or special about opera and the ballet? The opera recently survived at Earls Court and it has leading singers for about three of the different positions or whatever they are called. It survived because people going to it were asked to pay a price that was economically related to the cost of production. If that can be done and can enable opera to survive at Earls Court, why can it not be done at the Royal Opera House?
The arts subsidy is unnecessary because professionals earn their living and do not need to be subsidised. Subsidy harms the arts, because the Government want control and the performing bodies become institutionalised. Who needs a national theatre building? Are there not enough empty theatres around? It is bound to fail, because public accountability cannot be satisfied. Subsidy is a distortion because it perpetuates the status quo, while encouraging that which is unappealing and abstruse, and it stifles true creativity. It is politically inept and seen to be financially burdensome. Of course Gresham's law applies, which says that spending on the unnecessary drives out spending on the essential.
It is alienating most of the population and it is unpopular per se. It is expensive. Demand is by definition infinite and there are no agreed measures of value for money. It is misapplied because the target, if any, should be amateurs at local level, and training. I have some sympathy with the need to develop locally but none at all with subsidising at the national level. And of course it is completely incompatible with the generality of Government and Conservative philosophy. Avant garde usually means "'aven't a bean".
Heritage is something that I have not touched on before. When we talk about this issue we get pomposity, to say the least. I am sure that the great and good sitting around me at the moment will say that museums and art galleries are vital to the nation. Of course they are, provided that those who do not enjoy them subsidise those who do. What a good way to talk about essential needs to say that museums, art galleries, historic houses, churches and old theatre sites must be preserved for future generations. Yet, when Hereford cathedral tried to raise money to keep the Mappa Mundi—or Tuesday, or Wednesday, whatever it was—it could not be raised. The Church of England has pounds running out of its ears; why does it not itself fund the repair of churches and cathedrals? That is the question that we should be asking, but none of the great and good here bother to do so.
The Rose theatre is a thorn in the side of the Government—a sweet-smelling pile of bricks and rubble. Heritage addicts claim that the rubble must be preserved—provided the rest of us pay for its preservation. They have all been there on site—this well-known actor, that world-acclaimed actress, Sir Richard this, Sir Michael that, the has-beens, the "never-was's". Even the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was there, a man whose contribution to the arts is about the same as Bluebeard's contribution to the institution of marriage. As I understand it, the only VIP not there was Dr. Who with the Tardis.
I understand—although I am open to correction—that when all the people I have mentioned were at the site, a whip-round was suggested towards keeping the Rose theatre in being. All the millionaires who have made a


fortune from the public sector got together and whipped up the miserly sum of £200—a major contribution to the effort to preserve the Rose theatre. Obviously, they did not want to devote too much of their millions to this, but they are quick to turn to the public purse when they think something should be done.
Last year the Government saved £450 million on housing benefit to reduce public expenditure. Then they gave £450 million to the art lovers to increase public expenditure. What nonsense! What a stupid way to spend Government money! The people in this country need many things; what they do not need is the subsidising of the arts.
I wrote to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury asking why it was that the arts were the only area of public activity that had a three-year settlement. I asked why the same did not apply to education, the Health Service or local authorities, for example. I was told that the amount of money was only small and that security must be given to their arts friends over a three-year period. If there is one group in our society that does not need security of income and should not have any financial support at all, it is the arts group. We should he telling them that they must survive on their own income like everybody else and will certainly not get a Government subsidy.
The arts must be self-financing. There is nothing special about them. We must ensure that the Peter Halls of this world can never again make a fortune or get a gong because they have milked the public sector. Museums and art galleries must become cost-effective, and if people do not want to pay the full economic price, they will have to do something else about it. The heritage addicts must fund the full cost of restoration and preservation of such things as the Rose theatre. We cannot continue to fund the pleasures of a few art-loving trendies and other pompous twits who operate in the twilight world of Government subsidy while treating the old and the infirm so dreadfully.
The needs of my constituents reflect such things as housing benefit and increased old-age pensions. If I told them that they must contain their spending in line with inflation but if they want to go to the theatre they will get £60, they would give me a very peculiar look. They want money in their pockets. They are not concerned about the Rose theatre, the arts and ballet. They are concerned with living in a reasonable way, here and now.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is quite an experience to follow Alf Garnett's vicar on earth—

Mr. Dicks: It is better than being a pompous twit.

Mr. Cormack: If ignorance is bliss, my hon. Friend must be an extremely happy man. What his constituents need most of all is a civilised Member of Parliament and perhaps one day they will get one.
On behalf of those of my hon. Friends who, like me, have travelled many hundreds of miles to be here today because of the elections, I think it is most unfortunate that this is such a short debate. There is no reason at all why it should not have been open-ended. We could then have gone on until 8 o'clock or 8.30 and every hon. Member could have had a chance to contribute. Those who arrange these things ought to feel rebuked because they have kept out of the debate a number of hon. Members who have extremely valuable contributions to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am responsible for the setting down of private business for 7 o'clock. I hope that he is not reproaching me.

Mr. Cormack: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that the usual channels were responsible and obviously I withdraw any criticism of you. But it would have been possible to resume this debate after a certain time.
We are, I think, debating the arts and heritage jointly for the first time. It underlines a point that many of us have made for a very long time, that these two subjects should be taken together.
We have two admirable Ministers at the moment, my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, both of whom show that they have their hearts very much in the right place. But I hope that at some stage the Prime Minister or one of her successors will do as the Select Committee recommended in 1981 and create one Ministry which deals with the arts and heritage. With such a Ministry and with two Ministers such as we have today we would be even better served because the voice of the arts and heritage would be heard much more loudly and in higher places. That is no criticism of or reflection on the two Ministers.
We have spoken before about the Victoria and Albert museum. I was able to make a rather longer speech on another occasion on that. I am deeply disturbed that there is still a real crisis of morale in that great national institution. I am still in regular touch with members of the staff and I have seen Lord Armstrong. I impugn no one's integrity or good faith but it really is important that that crisis of confidence to which the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred—I might say at inordinate length—this afternoon is resolved. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts is keeping his eye on that.
I talked about the Mappa Mundi and cathedrals before Christmas and my hon. Friend will have a chance to refer to this matter when she replies. It is high time that the Government recognised that there is a responsibility for making a contribution towards the preservation of the fabric of these, our greatest national buildings. The cathedrals of this country constitute our most important single group of great buildings and it is most regrettable that they alone have no direct access to public funds. I am not advocating the French solution, where the fabric becomes the responsibility of the state. I am not suggesting that cathedrals should not make a proper contribution through appeals and other means. If they wish to charge I have no objection as a churchgoer and I believe that the Ely experiment works very well. Nevertheless, there is a real residual responsibility for the maintenance of these great and glorious buildings and it is time the Government faced up to that.
I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when she replies, to refer to the very real prolem that has been created because of the judgment of the Court of Referees concerning the Kings Cross Railways Bill. To say that English Heritage, which has been quoted with such approbation by the Secretary of State in the House today, has no standing, no locus, when it comes to appealing in the Kings Cross Railway Bill raises serious questions and it is important that the situation be corrected. I hope that


the pledges given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic in a debate not long ago will be quickly fulfilled.
We have already dealt with the Rose theatre, but another matter that is causing concern is the decision made last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that Mr. Palumbo's scheme should go ahead on the basis that the inspector said that it might be a masterpiece. Whether or not it is a masterpiece, it is clear that a number of important listed buildings and a medieval street pattern will be destroyed for ever. I hope, even at this late stage, there will be some further reflection on that.
Time and time again, when people talk about money for the arts and heritage, they say some extreme things. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) was particularly scathing. Let us remember what the arts and heritage bring to this country. I read an article this morning which said that it has been calculated that the "Gold of the Pharaohs" exhibition in Edinburgh brought in £3·3 million to the city of Edinburgh because of the people who came specifically to see that exhibition. Indirectly, this seven-week exhibition brought in £6·5 million. The arts and heritage bring people in and raise money. They are not a drain on the public purse. Because there happens to be some public responsibility, it does not mean that the Government are being asked to pour money into unproductive effort. Even if one's view is purely economic and even if one is hard-headed to the point of being philistine, one has to recognise that there is a return on investment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reply briefly to the points that I have made and I hope that she and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will continue, as I know that they have done, indefatigably to hammer on the Treasury door, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) put it so eloquently.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) and those hon. Members who were not able to make a speech. We should stop meeting like this, every five years on a European election day, to discuss arts and heritage. It is the intention of the impending Labour Government to include both arts and heritage in a single Ministry.
I am sorry that the unreconstructed hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) has left the Chamber. He has probably gone to vandalise a few paintings somewhere. He is to the arts what Vlad the Impaler was to origami. He gives us a laugh, and all he needs is a pig's bladder on a stick to complete his costume.
I shall devote most of my speech to the heritage because this year archaeologists in London have unearthed two priceless gems, the Roman baths complex at Huggin Hill and the Rose theatre. They have also laid bare the appalling lack of protection under existing laws for sites of archaeological influence. The campaigns surrounding Huggin Hill and the Rose have had a partial success in that neither will be totally destroyed, which was the original intention of their respective developers. However, in the case of the Roman baths, access has been lost, as tonnes of

sand have now reburied what one senior archaeologist has described as one of the best preserved and most extensive Roman baths complexes in northern Europe.
I have a few questions to ask the Minister about the Rose theatre, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Any Government truly wedded to the positive promotion of arts and the heritage would have scheduled the Rose theatre site under the relevant Act. How can the Government allow a speculative office block, an excrescence, to be built over the Rose theatre site? The adapted plans put forward to date are wholly unacceptable and I have two questions for the Minister. First, why were the museum of London archaeologists moved off site by English Heritage? Is it because English Heritage felt that the museum of London staff would stand too much by their principles and that English Heritage was in a better position to do a cosy deal with Imry Merchant, the developers? Secondly, why are the excavations of the pile sites going ahead before planning permission has been given by Southwark council or before a possible judicial review has been held?
The facts surrounding the Roman site at Huggin Hill present an unbelievable combination of ineptitude, confusion and vacillation. The facts show clearly that within the span of a few months a Roman site nearly 2,000 years old, described in September 1988 as of "national importance" by English Heritage, was, by February 1989, facing total destruction. It is difficult to exonerate English Heritage from a charge of gross incompetence. One can only assume that, since it is a quango headed up by Thatcherist nominees, advice is given on the basis of what it is believed that political masters want, rather than on what archaeology needs.
No other country in Europe would have allowed its archaeological heritage to be treated in such a shameful and purblind fashion as the Government have treated these two important sites. If property developers were interested in anything other than short-term profits, they might realise that heritage can serve mammon and the muse. The political and media campaigns might have secured a partial victory at Huggin Hill and the Rose, but no one can seriously believe that this piecemeal approach to the preservation of archaeological sites is either efficient or acceptable. The next significant site might be uncovered outside of easy walking distance of London and the press offices. What chance then of salvation?
We can and must learn a number of lessons from recent events. English Heritage as it is organised is incapable of properly serving the interests of archaeological preservation. It is too obviously in the pockets of Ministers and there is no serious money in those pockets for archaeology. We need a wholly independent commission, equipped with legislative teeth and a budget, substantially larger than the miserable £7·2 million, allocated for archaeological investigation and recording. Secondly, the 1986 voluntary code of practice between the British Property Federation and the Standing Conference of Archaeological Managers is highly unsatisfactory. The code is an agreement struck between unequals. It places archaeologists in the position of supplicants, relying almost entirely on the good will of property developers—a group not noted for altruism and selflessness.
The Minister for the Arts said that big business gives millions of pounds a year for archaeological restoration


and rescue work. Such sums are pocket change in comparison with the profits made by city developers, and small compensation for the destruction being inflicted on archaeological remains in London and elsewhere. A voluntary code is no substitute for statutory regulations backed up by fines and gaol sentences for those who demolish first and try to avoid awkward questions afterwards. I support the call made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and others that any developer wanting to develop in an area of archaeological significance as determined by part II of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 should be required to carry out at his own expense a full survey before preliminary planning consent is given.
We want to make sure that part II of that Act is immediately extended to the City of London as it has been to the town centres of York, Chester, Hereford, Exeter and Canterbury. It is ironic that the 1979 Act, which was carried through by the Labour Government, started off as a private Member's Bill introduced by the chairman of the Tory party, who is also the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which Huggin Hill Roman baths are located. As far as I am aware, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has not yet found the time to visit the site, nor has he publicly commented on it. One can only assume that the failure to bring the City within part II of the 1979 Act owes much to the cosy relations between Guildhall and the property developers allied to the pusillanimous attitude of English Heritage.
We have to do more for our archaeological heritage. The sign erected over the Rose theatre site reads, "Revealing today's heritage, building tomorrow's". When will it be realised that ugly and short-lived speculative office blocks are no more an acceptable replacement for the past than they are a worthy legacy for the future? The arts and heritage are not safe in the hands of the Government, driven as they are by the do-it-on-the-cheap approach to the arts required by probably the most philistine Prime Minister since the days of Lord Liverpool. It is hardly the mark of a truly civilised society to provide funds galore for defence and then to make the arts rely more and more on the begging bowl and on the good will of big business and the whims of rich men.
We can have no finer role in the world than to become a nation where the artistic skills and creativity of our people are given the maximum encouragement, a nation of craftsmen and craftswomen, painters, writers, poets and sculptors—a Mount Olympus of artistic creativity and excellence. What a prospect. What a vision we can offer the British people. Instead, we are all too often regarded these days as a nation of lager louts with the values of market spivs. I look forward to the vision of a new society, but I know that it will not become a reality until we have a Socialist Government. We shall have a separate Arts Department that will be under the guidance and control of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher).

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised a range of important and interesting issues during the debate that has reflected the importance that we all attach to our heritage and the

strength of passion that it can generate. I only feel sad, with others, that so many of my hon. Friends who have been in their places throughout the debate, and who had knowledgeable and detailed contributions to make, have not been able to participate in the debate. To have a debate during which the Chairmen of two Select Committees are able to present their views to the House is, in itself, a mark of distinction.
No arts or heritage debate would be the same without the particularly distinctive contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks). He is good at helping us to keep the subject in perspective.
I shall say little about the contribution of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I thought that he was mean-spirited not to recognise the remarkable contribution that has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, who is universally respected and admired. He has done so much to develop and promote business sponsorship of the arts. His efforts have led to a 39 per cent. increase in real terms in arts funding since 1979. My tributes are as nothing compared with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who in a particularly lucid contribution made only too clear the standing, quality and diversity of British art and the arts generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and I normally debate more toxic subjects than the topic of our debate today. My hon. Friend raised a number of detailed matters that I should like to take the opportunity of writing to him about. English Heritage, our adviser, whose work we greatly trust and value, has made significant strides forward since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State replied to the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, which is chaired by my hon. Friend. There are further matters, however, that I would appreciate discussing with my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green referred interestingly to the link between tourism and heritage. I do not take the view that tourism is a form of pollution. My hon. Friend had some important comments to make about the way tourism can be channelled and handled. We have direct responsibility for the royal parks and palaces and we are making strides forward in trying to ensure that the interpretation, handling and management of such magnificent palaces are to the highest standard, especially as we move forward to the establishment of an agency. English Heritage, with its properties in care, is working hard to ensure that the best practices are used and deployed. Its chairman, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, has made a special contribution in that area of work.
Various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), have referred to the funding of cathedrals. The debate on the future of the Mappa Mundi has generated great interest and has caused the issue to be reconsidered. There is no statutory provision preventing English Heritage or the national heritage memorial fund giving grants to cathedrals. It is entirely for them to determine their priorities in the allocation of their funds. If, in future, English Heritage and the Church of England decide that some measure of assistance should be made available to cathedrals and that additional funds from Government are


necessary for the purpose, we would give full consideration to that view. It has always been the view that grant-in-aid should be left for parish churches because they are less well placed to raise money on their own behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) made a special reference to the British Army band. If some of us did not realise that it is a vital part of our national heritage, I am sure that coexistence with my hon. Friend in this place has taught us all to mend our ways. My hon. Friend has a special and close interest in Hampton Court and in Bushy park. He and I have had discussions about the magnificent chestnut avenue. I am able to give him an absolute assurance that the trees are being fully examined and that no tree in the avenue will be removed unless it is a clear danger to the public.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) talked about the English National Ballet and international ballet. I give him the assurance that his concern is shared and that discussions are taking place with the London boroughs to determine how best to meet the concern.
I have not strayed into the remarks of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I think that they were contentious and provocative, save that he spoke at some length about the Victoria and Albert museum. The developments there are making good progress and there is a clear commitment to improving the quality of the museum. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts will be replying in more detail to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South.
Many hon. Members have talked about the developments at the Rose theatre. We have already had a statement about the theatre. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has spoken about Huggin Hill on many occasions. We believe that a constructive solution has been achieved for the Rose. I wish to pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard to secure its preservation. The developer of the site in which it was discovered, Imry Merchant, has co-operated in the pursuit of a practical and sensible scheme for preserving the remains of the theatre underneath the new building. It will be possible to prepare the site for public display when the construction works are complete. It is outrageous for Opposition Members to seek to denigrate what by any definition is a significant achievement. The developer has committed itself to providing £10 million in resources towards preserving a wonderful site. It is essential when seeking to secure archaeological remains that effective and realistic proposals are brought forward. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who seeks frequently to interrupt when this issue is discussed, makes it only too clear that he thinks that the answer to every problem is to write cheques so long as someone else signs them.
The fragile remains of the Rose theatre are not now under threat. The developers propose to preserve them without piling through them. The redesigned scheme allows public access. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment sought when he called for a month's delay on 15 May, and that is what the developers now propose. There were previously about 11

piles that potentially might damage the site, and all of these are to be removed to the outer perimeter of the theatre.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Bottomley: I will not.
Much has been achieved. There has been great interest in scheduling, but, as my right hon. Friend informed the House earlier, we do not propose to take that course at this stage. The detailed reason is set out in the letter to the solicitors for the Rose theatre campaign, a copy of which is in the Library.
There is no suggestion that there is any substance in the allegations made by Opposition Members. This is a good and achievable solution. It means that sites will be preserved and fragile ruins protected. The remains of the Rose theatre are already in a vulnerable state as they have been subjected to the elements. That is why English Heritage has worked so hard to secure their preservation and protection. It is essential now that people work together to look to the way forward. They should not seek constantly for means of conflict and confrontation. Instead, they should look for means of co-operation to find ways to ensure that the site—together with the many other sites which commemorate Shakespeare in the area of the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey—is given proper protection.
I hope that the actors who have done so much will not let the curtain fall now. I hope that in years to come they will continue to come back and participate and give us the benefit of their performances as that site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey becomes what all of us hope it will be, an area in which many of us can commemorate the magnificent Shakespearean legacy which has always been so important to our British heritage.

It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the order [19 June].

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL (By Order)

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Tees (Newport) Bridge Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

7 pm

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by Cleveland county council, of which my constituency forms part. Its purpose is to remove the statutory obligation on that council to provide for the Tees-Newport bridge to be raised whenever a vessel wishes to pass beneath it.
The bridge was opened in 1934 and has a central roadway span which can be lifted vertically by approximately 100 ft in the space of two minutes or less. The machinery and other equipment required to facilitate the raising of the bridge is very expensive to maintain and given the fact that the bridge has not had to be raised for a commercial vessel since 1984, and is unlikely to be raised again, the financial burden imposed on the county council is considerable and can no longer by justified. If the statutory obligation to raise the bridge can be repealed, the council estimates that it will save approximately £1 million over the next 10 years.
I assure the House that, even with the bridge in its lowered position, there is approximately 6 m clearance for vessels at high water. That compares with a clearance of 5 m for the Victoria bridge up river at Stockton and a minimum clearance of 5·5 m for the proposed new road bridge which would be constructed if and when the River Tees Barrage and Crossing Bill is enacted. I commend this Bill unreservedly to the House.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Frank Cook: I beg to move, That the Bill he now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by the Tyne and Wear passenger transport executive which operates the Tyne and Wear metro system. I have been asked to move this Third Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) who is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and who cannot carry out this important task because of his position. However, he has been most helpful in ensuring that the Bill has reached this stage.
The Bill will extend the metro system from the present terminus of the Bank foot branch to the Newcastle international airport. As well as serving the airport, the extension will provide park and ride facilities with a bus interchange which will increase the use of the metro system and reduce traffic congestion in Newcastle.
Since its opening a decade ago, the metro system has been most successful in meeting the transport requirements of the area and has contributed to the revitalisation of the local economy. This metro extension is essential to local and regional communications in the north-east and will provide the missing link between our air bridge to Europe and other parts of the United Kingdom and overseas, and a modern urban rail network serving the area directly and via connections at Newcastle Central station with British Rail's local and InterCity networks. The creation of the single European market and the opening of the Channel tunnel both emphasise the need for the highest possible quality of transport for our region.
As vice-chairman of the northern group of Labour Members, it gives me considerable pride to move this Third Reading, which I commend to the House.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Isle of Wight Bill (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Football Spectators Bill

Mr. Jim Lester: I beg to ask leave to present a petition to the House on behalf of my constituents and Nottingham Forest football club and the Nottingham Forest football club's supporters' association. There are 8,500 signatures on the petition which begs the Government to think again about the Football Spectators Bill and the requirement to carry identity cards to gain entry to football matches.
My supporters who have signed the petition believe that the identity cards Bill is complicated, costly and bureaucratic. They therefore pray that this House will think very carefully before proceeding with the Third Reading of that Bill in the House of Lords.

To lie upon the Table.

Dangerous Dogs

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Mr. John McAllion: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter in a debate on the Adjournment of the House. I stress at the outset that I do not mean this debate to be a re-run of last night's debate. This debate will focus on a problem which was not at the centre of last night's debate—the threat that dangerous dogs and dangerous breeds of dog pose to human safety in this country today.
I readily acknowledge that we are dealing with what can only be a relatively small section of the dog population. The vast majority of dogs are properly looked after and present no real problems, but that in no way diminishes the importance of this subject. Many people, including children, have been seriously savaged and mauled—some have even been killed—by dogs of dangerous breeds. The House must do whatever is practical, reasonable and responsible to try to reduce the danger of such attacks to an absolute minimum.
We must first try to understand the nature of the problem. I do not believe that Ministers have yet been able to do that. We must consider the problem of guard dogs, which are now being kept as domestic pets. The Minister wrote to me recently estimating that there are as many as 500,000 such dogs in homes across the country. Under the Guard Dogs Act 1975, any guard dog used to protect premises must be under the control of a trained handler at all times or it should be tied up. Any failure to comply with that requirement is an offence which is punishable in law, but no such requirement applies to the 500,000 guard dogs being kept as domestic pets.
I wrote to the Library research department asking for the legal position in respect of dogs kept as domestic pets in Scotland. I received a long answer, which was summed up as follows:
In plain language, what this all means is that dogs are classified as domesticated animals and are therefore not regarded as being inherently dangerous. In normal circumstances, the owner or keeper is expected … to ensure that the dog is kept under proper control, but no more than that. It is only if the dog is known to be dangerous either to people or to other animals that the owner is strictly liable to keep it under control at all times.
I assume that that means that the owner is strictly liable in the same way that owners of guard dogs are strictly liable under the Guard Dogs Act 1975.
I do not believe that that is right. It cannot be right that guard dogs such as rottweilers, pit bull terriers or bull mastiffs should be regarded as so dangerous as to require strict control at all times, but are then considered to be so innocuous at home as to require only the same kind of reasonable care as is necessary for a poodle or a pekinese. In that respect, the law is completely inconsistent and indefensible. The law must be tightened up to take account of the inherently dangerous nature of a number of the new guard dog breeds that increasingly are being brought into this country and kept as pets.
I am not alone in being concerned about the danger posed to human safety by certain breeds of dog rather than by individual dogs that the courts have defined as dangerous because of incidents in which they were

involved. The Daily Record, Scotland's national news-paper, has been running a very effective campaign calling for tighter control of some of the new breeds of dogs. In a special edition on 1 June the Daily Record said:
Today, we list five breeds—named by RSPCA experts—which are potential killers. Danger is deliberately bred into them. And people buy them precisely because they are ferocious, naturally aggressive and frightening—to others.
The dogs to which the Daily Record referred were rottweilers, American pit bull terriers, doberman pinschers, German shepherd dogs and Neapolitan mastiffs. It is not just a question of a campaign in a paper such as the Daily Record drawing our attention to particular breeds of dogs that it believes to be inherently dangerous and that the RSPCA's own experts believe to be inherently dangerous.
The publication Dog World—which is very pro-dog—commented on the incident that led to the death of my own constituent, 11-year-old Kellie Lynch. On 21 April it wrote:
there are a number of general points which have to be made. Firstly, young children, however mature and apparently responsible, should never be left alone with any breed other than the most docile, and especially not with the big guarding breeds. Ninety-nine per cent. of the time there will be no problem, but the consequence of an unforeseeable accident are so appalling that the risk, however well trained the dog is, is not worth taking.
The article then went on to deal with children being allowed to take dogs for walks. It said:
Again, the dogs themselves may appear well-tempered, but it needs only for them to be distracted by, for example, another dog running free, then things can go terribly wrong … And it is asking for trouble to take out two dogs at a time … The dogs may not be intentionally violent; it only needs the child to trip and fall over for the dog's attitude to it to change immediately.
That description—by people whom, I assume, know what they are talking about and who know what are the characteristics of big guard dogs—is quite chilling. I regard such phrases as
the consequences of unforeseeable accidents are so appalling
and
it needs only for them to be distracted … then things can go terribly wrong
and
it only needs the child to trip and fall over for the dog's attitude to it to change immediately
as making an unassailable case for the Government to take steps to restrict the ownership of potentially lethal dogs of that kind. However, Ministers have made it absolutely clear that they are prepared to allow a completely free and unrestricted market in the ownership of dogs which have an awesome potential for creating havoc and injury among the population at large.
It is not just the rottweiler breed, which has received so much attention recently, that is a problem. There is the new phenomenon of the American pit bull terrier. That breed of dog is now beginning to appear in this country. According to one television report earlier this week, American pit bull terriers have killed 16 people in the United States of America in just two and a half years. Is that the kind of tragedy that the Minister wants to be repeated in this country, or does he intend to do something about it?
In the same edition of the Daily Record on 1 June Mr. Martin Sinnatt, the secretary of the Kennel Club, which is


no opponent of dogs in general, issued the following chilling warning to anyone thinking about owning a rottweiler. He said:
It's like buying a gun without realising that it might go off one day.
He referred then to the American pit bull terrier, and said that the Kennel Club is now
advising members not to deal with or own them. There is encouragement of the fighting characteristics of this dog by some people. In view of this, we have ruled that no recognition should be accorded to it under any circumstances and that activities involving such dogs should be actively discouraged.
We have to assume that the Kennel Club knows what it is talking about. When it advises its members to have nothing to do with the American pit bull terrier, it really is beyond me that the Government have consistently refused to try to bring the growth in the ownership of American pit bull terriers under control.
When I first raised this matter in the period immediately following the incident in which young Kellie Lynch was killed, the Leader of the House told me that
there has long been legislation to control dangerous dogs, and remedies are available once it is clear that a particular dog is dangerous.
He was referring to dogs that have been proven by the courts to be dangerous—dogs that have already attacked human beings and savaged or possibly killed them. When dogs have attacked human beings, the law can get tough. The Leader of the House then said:
We are therefore not contemplating legislation to control a particular breed or type of dog. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
By "right hon. Friend" the Leader of the House meant the Home Secretary.
The matter was referred to the Home Secretary, who considered the position in the light of what had happened in Dunoon to my constituent. His answer was published yesterday in the form of a written answer. He simply confirmed the position that had been taken by the Leader of the House on 18 April. Having considered the problem for some time, the Home Secretary agreed with the Leader of the House that the penalties for individual dogs which have been proven to be dangerous would be toughened up. By that time it is too late to get tough with the dog. By then it has already created mayhem and attacked people. The Home Secretary went on to say that no action would be taken to control the ownership or the handling of increasingly fierce breeds of dogs which are now becoming more and more fashionable.
It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this is not a new problem. Of course it is not a new problem. It can be traced back to alsatians, the German shepherd dogs first introduced into this country in the aftermath of the first world war. There are fashions in dogs as there are fashions in everything else that people own. At one time it was alsatians. They have now gone out of fashion. For a while, the alsatian was overtaken by the doberman pinscher, but that breed has now become unfashionable and has given way to the rottweiler. The rottweiler will eventually become unfashionable and give way to another breed of dog—the American pit bull terrier. And who knows what the next might be? There have already been advertisements in this country for animals described as wolf hybrids—they are 75 per cent. wolf—which can be openly bought on the market without any restriction. In America people are free to own pure wolves. Is that the direction in which the Minister suggests that we should go?

Should we allow a completely unrestricted market to develop? Should we allow the unrestricted ownership of any kind of lethal and potentially dangerous animal? I hope that that is not the position. Something will have to be done. The Government's response so far has not been good enough. A growing body of informed opinion is calling for the Government to introduce checks arid controls over a problem that is now fast accelerating out of control.
The League for the Introduction of Canine Control publishes newsletters. In newsletter No. 27 it referred to a programme on BBC Radio 4—"Face the Facts"—on 23 February. It said:
the growth of one-man backstreet breeder trainers and thriving businesses selling large guard dogs; these 'security dogs' or 'attacker dogs' sell at £1,000 or more to anyone who can pay. One firm offers already trained Dobermanns, German Shepherds, 15 stone Rottweilers and also Pit-Bull terriers which are bred to bring down even a horse and 'not to give up till it's dead.' The danger of ordinary people owning such dogs is obvious and as Police Inspector Alan Clarke of Keston, said, 'a trained dog is as dangerous as a loaded gun'.
We should compare what was said in that BBC Radio 4 programme about individuals in back streets selling dogs of that kind, which present a lethal threat to other people in society, at high prices with what the Leader of the House said about the sale of such dogs. He said that the breeding of dogs for commercial sale is already controlled by legislation, but that legislation does not necessarily apply to back street sales. He added:
We do not think it sensible to try to extend these controls to private individuals who wish to sell the offspring of pets."—[Official Report, 18 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 182.]
Is the Minister saying that it is not sensible to bring under control the kind of situation reported in "Face the Facts" and that he sanctions any individual selling American pit hull terriers regardless of the consequences? If so, that is totally unreasonable, and it is time that the Government took action.
It is not just the occasional radio programme, RSPCA inspector's report, or Daily Record survey that adds to the chorus of demand for Government action. Even people associated with some of the breeds involved, such as rottweilers, are themselves concerned. In a recent article in Dog World, rottweiler breeder Mary MacPhail stressed the need to socialise and train them, to enable them to fit into society. She commented:
Breeders must realise that they have a special responsibility to screen rigorously in order to ensure the proper placement of puppies in homes with owners who are able to understand their character and who have the time and inclination to train and exercise them.
The people who know rottweilers best acknowledge that not just anyone can own such dogs but only those who understand the responsibilities involved and who can ensure that their dogs live safely among us.
On the Saturday after my constituent was killed, the Exchange and Mart carried 20 advertisements for rottweillers. Only two suggested that ownership involved any special responsibility. The others said, in effect, "If you have the money, come along and we will hand one of these dogs over to you." Nothing done by the Government so far begins to confront the accelerating ownership of potentially dangerous dogs by people who cannot look after them responsibly. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will act only when dogs get out of control. Steps should be taken before that happens to prevent pain and suffering being inflicted on totally innocent people.
Recently, I asked the Home Secretary whether he would establish a review committee to consider what could be done to bring the situation under control. He replied that he considers that there is no need for such a body. Perhaps the Minister will explain tonight why there is no need for a professional body to make recommendations to Parliament in respect of a dramatically changing situation. A host of ideas exists for the Government to explore, but that should not be done behind closed doors, between Ministers and civil servants. Those ideas should also be explored openly by public representatives so that they can be properly tested in the public arena.
One proposal, promoted by the RSPCA, is for a compulsory third party insurance scheme covering all dog owners, involving only a small premium for ordinary dogs and domestic pets of the kind that the majority of people own, but higher premiums in respect of rottweilers, alsatians and doberman pinschers, which might discourage casual ownership of certain breeds. Last night, the Secretary of State for the Environment ruled out a national registration scheme, but demand for one will not go away and eventually the Government will have to concede. Meanwhile, they should consider whether specific breeds ought to be subject to a special licence which only certain people would be allowed to hold. The Home Secretary could also consider whether certain breeds should be muzzled in public. Strict regulations should also apply to breeders to catch back-street sales by people knowing nothing about potentially dangerous dogs to others who know even less. Sales of dogs such as rottweilers should also be restricted to one per owner. If the Home Secretary reads about the history of rottweilers, he will learn that they are pack dogs, so if the leader turns on an individual, the others will follow.
The Home Secretary already imposes a requirement on local authorities to license the owners of kestrels or buzzards. Special permission is required to build an aviary for those breeds and to keep them in built-up areas. Yet, there is no restriction on owning a Neapolitan mastiff or a rottweiler, even though they pose a far greater threat to public safety than kestrels or buzzards.
My constituents Mr. and Mrs. Lynch are so concerned that they are organising a national petition to be presented to the Prime Minister. They wrote to the right hon. Lady asking whether she would receive the petition personally. One appreciates that the Prime Minister cannot accept every petition, but she replied that it could certainly be presented at No. 10. Her letter stated, in relation to the Lynch tragedy, that
if it were possible to prevent such an incident from ever occurring again simply by changing the law, I would not hesitate.
It may not be possible to prevent a similar incident, but steps can be taken to minimise the risk. It is incumbent on Ministers to encourage an open and comprehensive debate on methods of bringing the situation under control. Dog registration is a difficult subject, but there should be informed discussion and positive action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I fully understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) has chosen to raise the subject of dogs tonight.

The whole country was shocked by the attack that two rottweiler dogs made on Kellie Lynch on 14 April. She lived in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to take back to her parents the sympathy of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already written to express her sympathy to Kellie's mother and grandmother.
My right hon. Friend asked for a review of legislation relating to dangerous dogs within a very short time of learning of Kellie's death. That review was quickly conducted, and the hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement yesterday as to his conclusions, to which I shall refer shortly.
First, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's points concerning the Guard Dogs Act 1975, because he may be under a slight misapprehension as to that statute's nature and purpose. That Act is primarily aimed at the use of guard dogs on commercial premises. It specifically excludes farms and domestic dwellings and is framed in terms of the function of the dog rather than, for example, the breed of the dog.
The Act is concerned solely with working dogs that are carrying out the functions of a "guard dog": that is, a dog being used to protect premises, property or, in very narrowly defined circumstances, a person. The Act ensures that those dogs are securely held. It does not control dogs while they are being kept as family pets.

Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to explain the difference. Does he accept that there is an increasing fashion, particularly in inner cities such as London and peripheral estates in Scotland where people fear burglary and attack because of the lack of law and order, for keeping dogs specifically to guard their houses and themselves? In those circumstances, would the Guard Dogs Act apply to those dogs?

Mr. Hogg: It is a matter of interpretation. It might be of assistance to the House if I were to go through the Act at some length. That would enable the hon. Gentleman to form a view.
The primary section of the Guard Dogs Act is section 1. It might be helpful if I refresh the memory of the House as to the terms of that section. Section 1(1) of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 provides:
A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ("the handler") who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
Section 1(2) continues:
The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except—(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or (b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
Subsection (3) provides:
A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog in any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
It is important to bear in mind that a guard dog has a narrow definition for the purposes of the Act. That definition is to be found in section 7:
'Guard dog' means a dog which is being used to protect

(a) premises; or
(b) property kept on the premises; or
(c) person guarding the premises or such property;".



The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the Guard Dogs Act would apply to a dog which is used to guard domestic premises. That is a matter of interpretation, but my initial response—I do not pretend that I am expressing more than a layman's view—is that it could do. If a person was using a dog for any of the purposes set out in the interpretation section of the Act, it might well be that, notwithstanding the fact that the premises being guarded were domestic rather than commercial, the dog would be a guard dog for the purposes of the Act. Ultimately, that is a matter for the courts. I can only give a not particularly well informed view, but that is my view. It is a matter for the House to reflect upon, and it may be that the Guard Dogs Act 1975 would apply.

Mr. McAllion: I realise that neither the Minister nor myself is a legal expert, but is the Minister seriously suggesting that the 500,000 guard dog types which are being kept as domestic pets should be individually tested through the courts to see whether they come under the auspices of the Guard Dogs Act 1975? That is not a realistic proposition.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman does me a considerable injustice. I was not suggesting that the matter should be adjudicated in the instance of every single dog which might or might not be a guard dog. That is not the question. The question is whether any old dog is capable of being a guard dog when being used as a guard dog for the purposes of guarding domestic premises.
The answer to that question, at first blush, is yes. If a dog is being used to guard premises that fall within the scope of the 1975 Act—and that does not appear to be confined to commercial premises, subject to what I have already said regarding the interpretation of section 1(1)—it is possible that the dog is a guard dog. But that is subject to one important proviso, which is that the Act expressly excludes farms and domestic dwellings. That proviso limits the scope and the application of section 1, so I ought to modify the opinion that I have previously expressed.
The Act would not apply to most flats, which are clearly domestic premises. It would depend on the flat and on the circumstances in each case. The Act would not apply to domestic premises, and flats arc domestic premises, but it might apply to other premises.
As I have said, the Act is concerned solely with working dogs that are carrying out the functions of a "guard dog": that is, a dog being used to protect premises, property or, in very narrowly defined circumstances, a person. The Act ensures that those dogs are securely held. It does not control dogs while they are being kept as family pets.
Pausing to make a point which must be self-evident, any dog is capable of being a guard dog. I suppose a pekinese is capable of being a guard dog. I had an extremely attractive Welsh springer spaniel, not the kind of dog that one would contemplate as a guard dog, yet he performed most admirably in that role, whereas my rather nice black labrador, which looks formidable, is probably not the kind of dog that one would choose as a guard dog. The definition of a guard dog has nothing to do with the breed but relates to the function that is being performed by the dog at the relevant time.
I foresee many difficulties in following the path which the hon. Gentleman suggests. There is a very great difficulty in defining a guard dog once one has departed

from the simple definition used in the Guard Dogs Act, which I have endeavoured to summarise. The Act is not concerned with breeds or type of dog.
Breeds and types of dog have no status in law. The reasons for that are probably self-evident. The evidential problems are great, and cross-breeds are extremely difficult to define and identify. In any case, the evidence of the last few weeks and the tragic attacks which have occurred suggest that dogs of a whole variety of breeds can be dangerous.
We have seen attacks by rottweilers, dobermans and alsatians. We must bear in mind that many alsatians are used as guide dogs. However, I must come back to the fact that spaniels, of which I am particularly fond, are sometimes rather vicious animals. I had a pleasant Welsh springer spaniel of which I was very fond. However, that does not alter the fact that, from time to time, he could be extremely vicious. I am ashamed to say that on one occasion he caught a postman. Worst of all are the Jacks—Jack Russells. My father has had many Jack Russells and they have all been nasty. One Jack Russell—I forget its name—bit my mother three times. The last time was its last bite because it was put down. My point is that Jack Russells can be nasty. My daughter had the misfortune to be caught by another Jack Russell and her face was rather badly bitten.
So there are problems with dogs of all kinds. One must not suppose that the problems are confined to the big and obviously dangerous dogs. I had the misfortune to be bitten twice last year by the same dog on the same evening. It was not a rottweiler, a doberman or an alsatian but a bad-tempered old cross-breed which probably had some terrier and some labrador in it. That dog was very disagreeable. It was guarding a garage. It bit me when I got out of the car and when I went to the garage mechanic's back door, it bit me again. Therefore, one cannot define dangerous dogs by any definition known to the law. Indeed, it was difficult to recognise that dog. One could speculate as to its breed, but one could do no more than that. It certainly could not have been defined in law.
We have to face the fact that there have been attacks by terriers, collies and mongrels and that such attacks are very commonplace. We do not know how many occur. I have heard estimates of 250,000 a year—about 700 a day—or even 1 million a year: nobody really knows. Most dogs present no risk at all. I do not think that there is anything to be gained by trying to define dangerous breeds.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister is missing my point. I am not suggesting that we can define comprehensively what constitutes a dangerous dog. Some dogs will always be dangerous. I am suggesting that some breeds, which have become much more common in recent years, present an entirely different degree of threat to human safety. I do riot believe that a Jack Russell is capable of bringing down a horse and killing it but an American pit bull terrier is. Is the Minister seriously arguing that the American pit bull terrier is not a qualitatively more dangerous and different type of dog from the dogs we traditionally have in this country?

Mr. Hogg: I shall finish my point about the Guard Dogs Act 1975 and then I shall deal specifically with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, because they require serious and considered attention.
There is another problem with the restricted nature of the Guard Dogs Act. It applies only at the premises on which the dog is held and used. A guard dog outside those premises ceases to be a guard dog within the meaning of the Act. It is a guard dog only when it is employed in that capacity. It is for that reason and the others I have outlined that I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's ingenious solution is the right one.
The hon. Gentleman made two suggestions that are capable of sitting together or of being seen as alternative approaches. His first proposition was that certain classes of dog can be identified and prohibited. His second proposition is that one could set up a licensing system whereby some individuals are authorised to possess dogs which are deemed to be dangerous and some are not. Those two separate propositions need attention, and I shall deal with both.
The hon. Gentleman's first proposition, that some dogs can be defined and prohibited, does not run, for a variety of reasons. Who will determine and by what criteria whether dogs are so dangerous that they should be prohibited? One could say that Parliament should do that, but somebody would have to advise Parliament. What does one do about changing dogs? One of the facts of life which people do not like to remember is that all dogs are man-made; they are no longer natural. If we were to pass a prohibition order on, for example, the American pit bull terrier, it would not be long before somebody developed a dog which had all the characteristics of an American pit bull terrier but which was something different. Therefore, we would have to have an extraordinarily precise and quickly responding system for identifying and translating into the prohibited classes dogs which are manufactured—I make no apology for using that word.
There is another problem associated with the policy of prohibition. What does one do about cross-breeds and half breeds? One might take the view that a dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is an American pit bull terrier, but there would be many problems of identification. Would it be defined by temperament or appearance? What would happen if one parent was an American pit bull terrier and the other was a Newfoundland? At what point would the definitional test bite—if I may put it that way? Should a dog that is one quarter American pit bull terrier fall within the prohibited category?

Mr. McAllion: Is the Minister suggesting that, because it is possible to cross-breed the terrier, he is happy to allow into the country dogs with a record of killing 16 people in two and a half years? Is he prepared to tolerate that simply because it might be difficult to define that dog? It would he possible to say that any American pit bull terrier or any dog sired by an American pit hull terrier should be prohibited in this country.

Mr. Hogg: I am against nonsense. I am trying to explain why the hon. Gentleman's proposition is manifest nonsense. It sounds splendid to say that one should prohibit the American pit bull terrier. Standing by itself, that proposition has appeal. However, when one begins to examine it, one sees that it is nonsense. When does an American pit bull terrier cease to be an American pit bull

terrier? A dog with one American pit bull terrier parent is partly an American pit bull terrier. However, would it fit that definition for the purposes of the prohibition orders?

Mr. McAllion: It might.

Mr. Hogg: Of course it might, but we have to have a legal system that is capable of identifying and prohibiting an animal and enforcing the law against it.

Mr. McAllion: A national registration system.

Mr. Hogg: That is a different point. I shall deal with registration if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so. It might be a good thing if I did.
But just for the moment let us focus on the question of the half American pit bull terrier. Is it an American pit bull terrier for the purposes of a prohibition order? What happens if a parent mated with a particularly docile breed of dog, so that the puppy had no aggressive characteristics? Is it then an American pit bull terrier? What happens if it has but one eighth in it? Is it an American pit bull terrier? The hon. Gentleman must work such points out before he commends the prohibition order to the House.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister must realise that it is not justifiable to sit back and do nothing because it is difficult to do everything. Just because it is difficult to identify cross-breeds does not mean that pure bred American pit bull terriers should not be prohibited. It may not solve the problem entirely, but it would be a significant step towards solving it, and it may save a number of lives in Britain. Is that not worth trying for?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, of course it is worth trying for. As I shall explain to the House, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought forward a range of proposals which will do quite a lot and upon which I hope the House will legislate in due course. But we must not pass nonsense simply because we have a problem. Problems must be confronted in a sensible and rational way, not in a silly way. I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman—I rather think that I have—that the idea of simply prohibiting an American pit bull terrier is a non-runner.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has in no way persuaded me that to prohibit one breed of dog is a non-runner. It may not be possible to prohibit every dog in the country with a strain of that breed in it, but it is possible to prohibit the pure breed itself. I am suggesting that, although it would not solve the problem entirely, it may be of some significance and it may save the occasional life, and for that reason it would be worth trying.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has just explained clearly why such a prohibition would be rubbish. He said it may not be possible to prohibit the cross-breed; it may be possible only to prohibit the pure breed. At that point, no pure breed will be imported, only cross-breeds, which are not caught by the prohibition. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will have achieved a prohibition which applies only to pure breeds and has no relevance to cross-breeds simply because cross-breeds are not capable of definition in law. That is the problem.
Let me embark upon a consideration of the other interesting argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman:that we should set up some licensing system which would enable somebody—I shall explore who in a


moment—to give or to deny specific individuals the right to own certain classes of dog. That is another proposition to which the hon. Gentleman referred obliquely, which, on occasion, has been canvassed publicly by others.
Let us contemplate what is being discussed. First, let us come back to the old question of, which dog? Presumably the licensing system will not apply to all dogs. Or are we to have a licensing system that applies to all dogs, so that a person has to go to somebody before he can buy a pekinese? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is recommending that. Therefore, we start from the proposition that the licensing scheme which the hon. Gentleman is considering applies only to some classes of dogs. What classes? We are back to where we started. What is to be done about cross-breeds, half-breeds and quarter-breeds? The answer is that dogs cannot be defined in such a way that they are capable of identification in statutory terms. If the parentage is altered to some degree, a different animal will be created. Therefore, that approach is clearly unsustainable.
The next question—although one does not need to deal with it because the premise is unsound—is, who will be responsible for the licensing? I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell me that the overworked police force should he responsible for licensing. Goodness knows how many hundreds of thousands of people would apply to possess a variety of dogs—for example, alsatians, dobermans, collies or mongrels. Who will grant the licence? Will it be the police, the local authority, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your spare time? Those are the kinds of questions that one must ask oneself before advancing such a policy.
What about the criteria? Let us assume that dogs to which the licensing procedures apply can be defined and that somehow some long-suffering village constable can be prevailed upon to issue licences in his village. What standards is he to apply? Are they to have regard to the comfort of the dog or the comfort of the house where the dog is to live, to the character of the owner or to the purpose of use?

Mr. McAllion: One of the criteria to which they could have regard would he whether the owner was capable of keeping the dog in a safe pen or stockade at night, and if he was not capable of providing such a facility, he would be denied the right to own that dog. The Minister is arguing for completely free and unrestricted ownership of any kind of animal. Is he suggesting that, because a wolf hybrid is a cross-breed, he would encourage people to own them and use them in public in Britain?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has once again demonstrated why the proposition will not run. He has suggested that one criterion—not the only one—should be the ability of the dog's owner, or its prospective owner, to keep the dog in secure circumstances at night. That means that the licensing authority, whoever that might be, will have to go along at night, or some other convenient time, to see the accommodation, to look at the fences and see how secure they are, what the locks are like, where the dog will be, and what will happen when the owners go out for a drink at the pub.
We heard yesterday that there were about 7·5 million dogs.

Mr. McAllion: That was an estimate.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman fairly reminds me that it was an estimate. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to extend the licensing system to all 7·5 million dogs, but let us assume that he wants to extend it to, say, half.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister is being offensive in the light manner in which he is dealing with this serious subject. If he had listened to my contribution to begin with, which most of the time he did not, he would have heard me say that RSPCA experts had defined five breeds of dogs which are particularly dangerous and to which such a system could apply.

Mr. Hogg: The RSPCA is not the final arbiter on the matter. If we are to have a licensing authority and a licensing system, it must be just and the House must decide to which dogs it applies. We would probably all agree that it should apply to a rottweiler. We are told that there are between 90,000 and 180,000 of those. We would probably agree that is should apply to dobermans. I suspect that people would probably urge us to apply it to alsatians. If I judge correctly, there are several hundred thousand of those. I am sure that a Staffordshire bull terrier would be caught in the net. I remember that my housemaster at school had a particularly beastly one called a hog dog; it was an extremely fierce animal which certainly could not be excluded from the licensing system. Many other dogs would have to be subject to control if one went down that road.
One cannot say that control would apply to three or four well known breeds, because that would not rub. One must enlarge the category for licensing so that a lot of dogs are caught by it; otherwise, it is not reasonable. Once one has gone down that road, one is faced with an absurdity because one is regulating the possession of certainly hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of creatures. One simply cannot impose on any central authority the burden of that type of licensing role.
You may recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that last year I had the responsibility of dealing with firearms. That was a serious issue and we had to consider whether it was possible for the local constabulary to carry out proper inquiries into the ownership and safe keeping of, for example, large-magazine self-loading shotguns. Many people told me that we were putting an impossible burden on to the police. I never accepted that, but it was said by many, including Opposition Members. If it was considered impossible to have control over a few tens of thousands of shotguns, surely we are talking about a total impossibility in respect of the many hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, of dogs that fall into the category we are currently discussing.

Mr. McAllion: It would not necessarily be the police who were given this responsibility. Many hon. Members have been trying to press the Government to establish a properly funded registration scheme. That would mean that dog wardens could be employed by local authorities to take on the responsibility for operating the system.

Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly prepared to contemplate that possibility. Last night, the hon. Gentleman commended to us a dog registration scheme, but let us consider what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
What he is proposing as a possibility is that a clog warden employed under the scheme should have the responsibility to determine whether particular individuals


should or should not have the right to own a particular class of dog. All right, but what kind of person will be employed as a dog warden? To whom is that dog warden to be accountable? Would most people want to have their right to possess a particular animal determined by the kind of person who is likely to be employed as a dog warden? That is a serious question to ask.
We would have to have an appeal system, because, once one decides to refuse someone the right to have a dog, one must set up an appeal system. After all, that is what we do in the case of firearms. You will bear in mind from your intimate knowledge of the firearms system, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, when one is refused a section 1 certificate, or in certain circumstances a shotgun certificate, one has the right to go to the Crown court to appeal. One could not do less in respect of a person who had been refused ownership of a dog. That person would have to have the right to appeal to the Crown court, with all the paraphernalia that that would entail.

Mr. McAllion: I referred to this, but obviously the Minister was not listening. Local authorities already have the right to refuse to let someone keep a kestrel in a built-up area. That person, however, can appeal to the elected members of the authority. There would be no need for anyone to go to the Crown court or anything else. If we had a properly run, effective dog warden scheme at local authority level with funds provided by a proper licensing system, none of this would be a problem.

Mr. Hogg: Come, come. If a person was denied the right by a dog warden to possess a dog, that could hardly he the final decision. One could hardly allow a dog warden, whoever that person may be, to have the final say-so as to whether another individual should possess a dog.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has totally missed the point. This House would lay down the guidelines that dog wardens would be asked to apply locally. The House would set down the criteria that would have to be met before someone could own a dog. It would not be the decision of the dog warden, but the decision of the House, after a proper informed debate, as to what criteria could be applied. I plead with the Minister to get this matter sorted out in the open rather than in an obscure Adjournment debate when no one is here.

Mr. Hogg: A most bizarre proposition is coming from the Labour party. It is suggested that we should lay down a code of practice, or at least guidance, for the instruction of a dog warden, who would then be able to interpret that guidance or code of practice as he thought fit, without being subject to any external intervention. That is a form of tyranny.

Mr. McAllion: No, it is not.

Mr. Hogg: Of course it is. If one allows some official—I regret to say that he is unlikely to be highly paid or particularly well qualified—to interpret a range of rules without a right to appeal, one has set up a tyranny.

Mr. McAllion: That is absolute nonsense. The Minister is blethering a load of rubbish. The Minister knows that local authorities undertake a series of activities, and if individuals feel that they have been in any way tyrannised by any local authority official, they can appeal to the

ombudsman system for justice. That prevents such tyranny, and the same could apply in relation to dogs. There is no question of tyranny.

Mr. Hogg: We are now getting rather close to the true voice of Socialism. In this connection, some official, probably not a senior official, should have the right, without any appeal or redress, to tell ordinary people that they can or cannot possess a dog. If one does it in respect of dogs, why not do it in respect of everything else? One could decide that certain people should not have a car or that someone should not have a firearm because Mr. Bloggins down at the county council thinks they should not. Once one starts to look at that proposition slowly and carefully, one sees that it is rubbish. The proposition that the hon. Gentleman must grasp is that if one gives to a dog warden the ability to refuse or grant a licence, that must be the subject of some appeal mechanism.

Mr. McAllion: Various mechanisms could be applied short of going to the highest court in the land to sustain an appeal. The Minister is talking nonsense. Yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he would take the power to ban certain individuals from having the right to own a dog. The same applies to people's right to own a car if people have shown that they are not capable of accepting the responsibility of that ownership. The Minister is defending the right of individuals to own whatever animal they want, but what about the rights of parents? Surely they have the right to know that their children are safe when they play in the parks. Does the Minister want to give them certain rights—for example, the right to life?

Mr. Hogg: Of course, and I shall tell the House of the propositions that the Home Secretary has in mind. First, however, we must dispose of the nonsense that we have heard tonight. Incidentally, I do not want to rub it in, but the Crown court is not the highest court in the land. It is the court that is frequently used for the purpose of appeals in circumstances such as this. That is why I selected it. It is the court, for example, that deals with appeals in the case of firearms, with which there is an analogy. Under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, a person must establish a good reason to possess a rifle or pistol. If the certificate is not issued, that person has the right to appeal to the Crown court. That bears a close analogy to what we are discussing now.
We are contemplating a dog warden, not a police constable I note—the hon. Gentleman does not want to involve the police, but dog wardens, whoever they may be for that purpose—granting licences. The least the hon. Gentleman could do is to accept that there should be a proper right of appeal. I hasten to add, however, that I am reasonably content that the appeal should be to the justices. For the purposes of consistency of approach I was referring to the Crown court, but I am perfectly willing to use the justices.
The most difficult issue that faces the hon. Gentleman is the number of dog wardens who must be employed. He and I remember the debates of last night about the cost of a registration scheme. I remember one figure, given at about 2.30 in the morning, of a one-off payment of £60 to £65 in respect of each dog registered. The other approach was an annual charge of £15, again in respect of each dog registered.
However, that assumed that the sole function of dog wardens would be to collect strays. If, as we are told, one of the important functions of a dog warden would be the licensing of the many thousands—probably tens of thousands—of eligible dogs within the area of that district council, we will not be talking about one warden, 50 wardens or even 300 wardens; we will be talking about needing thousands of dog wardens, especiallyif they have to work at night looking at the safe-keeping arrangements that the applicants are proposing to put in place.

Mr. McAllion: There would be no need for thousands of wardens. My suggestion was simply a possibility. The licensing committees of the local authorities could decide whether such licences should be issued, just as they decide about other licences for other purposes. There are millions of cars in this country, but we do not need thousands of wardens to check whether everyone has a licence. There are ways of making sure that a licence system operates effectively without involving thousands of wardens.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Minister or his civil servants to come up with something along those lines. They should be looking at that. I am simply suggesting that the Government should acknowledge that further action is required. They must look closely at how they can bring the ownership of such dogs under some control, because if they do not, other people will be killed.

Mr. Hogg: I have noticed that the hon. Gentleman's approach to this matter is to put up a suggestion and then, when I have knocked it down and destroyed it, to say, "I didn't mean that. Perhaps something else could be thought up." Then we go through the same procedure all over again. That approach is nonsense.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Mr. Hogg: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment with the issue of dog wardens.
About 1,000 dog wardens could be needed in the south Keston district area, especially if they have to visit the home of every applicant. Let us be generous and say 500. In that instance, we would certainly not be talking about £60 in respect of each dog as a one-off charge or about £15 per year. We would be talking about hundreds of pounds.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister is setting up coconuts on stalls just to knock them down. Nobody is suggesting anything of the kind. The Minister has no evidence or data to sustain his argument. He is simply saying that if he says it, it must be the case and that the argument follows from that and that is nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is the Minister responsible for something that is causing a lot of pain and suffering to people outside this House. He should get rid of the flippant attitude that he has shown throughout this debate and start to tackle the problem seriously. He should stop setting up Aunt Sallies just to knock them down and talk about what he can do to bring the problem under control.

Mr. Hogg: I have simply been responding to points made by the hon. Gentleman. I never suggested, in the first instance, that dog wardens should be the licensing authority. That was the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Similarly, it was his suggestion that there should be a licensing authority. The hon. Gentleman has made a proposition, and I have had the courtesy to examine it. He must not blame me for making the status of dog wardens

an essential part of the debate when he raised that point in the first place. I should never have been so silly as to think of that idea.
The hon. Gentleman thought that there was an analogy between cars and dogs and that these licences could be granted on the nod. However, the hon. Gentleman has forgotten two things. First, one has to pass a test to have a car. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should be tests for the ownership of certain classes of dogs?

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has argued throughout on the basis that there will be tests for the ownership of some dogs. Deciding whether the applicant meets the criteria is in itself a kind of test. Although the Minister has made that assumption throughout, he is now treating it as if it were a revolutionary idea that has just been thought up. The Minister is not suggesting that, because we have tests for cars, we need thousands of instructors in every city. The people who carry out the tests are small in number, but they seem to cope.

Mr. Hogg: Let us look at the criteria. Car tests comprise a test in skill in driving. There are not all that many driving test applicants each year. However, we are talking about potentially 2 million to 3 million dogs being the subject of the licensing and about somebody having to apply and monitor the criteria and then having to grant a licence.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister is assuming that there will be between 2 million and 3 million dogs. My only suggestion was that made by the RSPCA's experts, who identified five specific breeds. The Minister is spreading the argument beyond those five breeds simply for the convenience of his own argument and so that he can produce a figure of between 2 and 3 million dogs. Neither the Minister nor I knows what the number is because nobody in this country knows the true number of dogs. However, whatever the number, the initial licensing process will occur only once.
This issue should be examined in detail and not be the subject of a flippant exchange between the Minister and myself. There should be expert committees. However, when I asked the Home Secretary whether he would set up such a committee to consider the problems and the suggestions, he said that he did not see any need for it. Why does the Minister think that there is not a need to examine these things in detail, and why does he treat them as a matter for light debate in this place?

Mr. Hogg: I am not treating these issues lightly. I am responding to specific suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that the RSPCA has identified a number of breeds, but it has certainly not identified all the dangerous breeds, and it has not even begun to address the question of cross-breeds or quarter-breeds, because it cannot.
Is the hon. Gentleman considering a one-off licensing system or an annual licensing system? In the nature of things, people's circumstances and conditions change. Would a person who moves house have to apply for a new licence? The hon. Gentleman has himself told us that one important criterion—indeed, the only one that he mentioned—is the ability of an applicant to keep his or her animal securely at night. The ability of a person to do so will clearly depend on the conditions in which he or she is living. When someone moves house, those conditions change, so would a further application be necessary?

Mr. McAllion: Why does the Minister always find a reason or excuse for taking no action in this matter when, in relation to the poll tax, for which local authorities will find thousands of people's circumstances changing every week, local authorities are expected not only to register the changes but to send out notices to the individuals concerned about those changes in their circumstances? I have discovered today that, in Tayside region, 5,000 changes will be made to the poll tax register every week. If the Minister does not find that a problem, why does he think that there will be a problem with notifying changes in a system for trying to keep dangerous breeds of dogs under control?

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has made two points. I am not commending that we do nothing; I am commending—as I shall outline when the hon. Gentleman permits me to do so—that we do what the Home Secretary says that we should do. My right hon. Friend has made his statement in a written answer.
There is no analogy between what the hon. Gentleman has been forced to consider—an annual licensing system for dogs—and the community charge. Of course, when somebody moves house, they notify their change of address to the authorities. That is the beginning and the end of it. However, in the context of the licensing scheme that the hon. Gentleman is considering for a number of dogs that are incapable of definition, the criteria have to be re-examined when the change of address occurs, because the applicant's circumstances then become different. If one moves from, for example, a house in rural Lincolnshire to the middle of Grantham, one's circumstances change. Although one could very well keep a range of big dogs in rural Lincolnshire, that might not be possible in the centre of Grantham in a block of flats.
The point that I am putting to the hon. Gentleman, and which he is so unwilling to grasp, is that under his scheme, when there is a change of circumstances, an inquiry would have to be made about the ability of the applicant, whose circumstances had changed, securely to house the dog at night in those new circumstances. What happens if the authority decides that the applicant cannot house the dog securely at night in those new circumstances? Is it to be put down? I wonder what the RSPCA would have to say about that.

Mr. McAllion: I am not speaking on behalf of the RSPCA; I am simply trying to press the Minister to take some sort of action to control a problem that is becoming ever more dangerous. His alternative is to do nothing—to let dogs be kept by entirely unsuitable owners who do not keep them under control but let them loose in the community, putting others at risk. That is not good enough.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman was here last night, and I assume that he reads Hansard—

Mr. McAllion: I was here until 2.45 this morning, but I have been in Dundee since then to vote and to make sure that Mr. James Provan is not re-elected as Conservative MEP.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman is rather confused. I understand that: most members of the Labour party are normally fairly confused. The hon. Gentleman is merely confused in particular, whereas they are confused in general. That, however, is not an excuse for not

remembering what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said at some length last night, what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday in a parliamentary answer and what—when the hon. Gentleman permits me—I am going to say this evening.
The intellectual quality of the hon. Gentleman's stance—I trust that I am putting this gently and courteously—is not terribly appealing. He is really saying that it is better to do nonsense than to do nothing. When driven into a corner he admits, at least implicitly, that what he has been saying is nonsense. When pressed on a specific point, he will say, "I did not really mean that; I had something rather different in mind."
Let us move on to what I suggest should be done. We should consider with some care how we are to control dangerous dogs. A number of statutes provide protection against dogs: I shall deal primarily with England and Wales, because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I do not answer for Scotland, and Scottish legislation in this regard is different.
In England and Wales there are three primary statutes. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 makes it an offence to have an unmuzzled ferocious dog at large—that is, off a lead—in a street, park or open place in most urban areas. Thus, if a dog is ferocious and does not have a muzzle, its owner commits a criminal offence, for which the penalty is a fine of up to £400.
Let me pause there to make a serious point. I think that it is at least possible that some classes of dog would be deemed by the courts to be ferocious without the necessity to prove any particular propensity to violence in a particular dog. I suggest—this is just an idea, not a legal opinion—that in the case of the American pit bull terrier, which was pure-bred and manifested all the characteristics of that breed, the court might be prepared to treat it as a ferocious animal even if there was no evidence that that animal had threatened or injured anyone. The 1847 Act, where it applies—which is primarily in urban areas—may be a remedy that is already available in respect of the dog to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
Obviously, if a rottweiler had threatened or injured a person, it would then become a ferocious animal for the purposes of the 1847 Act. I do not think that a rottweiler per se—that is, without proof of some previous injury or propensity to injure—would be treated as a ferocious animal, but once there was some reason to think that it was dangerous or likely to injure someone it would, I think, become one.

Mr. McAllion: Why should there be a distinction between a rottweiler and an American pit bull terrier?

Mr. Hogg: The reasons for the distinction are those that the hon. Gentleman has himself advanced in his many interesting interventions. I think that an American pit bull terrier is essentially a fighting dog, bred for that purpose. No one would say that that was true of a rottweiler: rottweilers are guard dogs.
I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Council of Docked Breeds recently, one of whom was the secretary or chairman of the Rottweiler Society. There are 90,000, and although some may be fierce and clearly are, it would be wrong to regard the majority of the breed in that way. That is probably not true of the American pit hull terrier, although it is probably fair to say that the


majority of that breed have a propensity to violence, which might well classify them as ferocious animals within the meaning of the 1847 Act. It is at least quite likely that the 1847 Act would prohibit someone from keeping unmuzzled in a public place an American pit hull terrier—or, for that matter, any dog that could be properly regarded as ferocious by reason either of its breed or its past record or present circumstances.
Allowing a ferocious dog off the lead without a muzzle is a serious matter which I do not think that people fully appreciate. They should know that the courts already have powers to deal with them severely. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in Scotland, similar powers exist—although expressed in a more modern form—in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
Civil liability in respect of injury or damage caused by dogs in Scotland is regulated by the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987. In England and Wales it is regulated by the Animals Act 1971, which provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage that it causes if he knew that the animal was likely to cause such damage or injury if unrestrained. The two Acts allow those who have been attacked and injured to claim damages.
It will, of course, depend on proof of knowledge on the part of the defendant, and that knowledge flows from the defendant's knowledge of a particular dog and of the way that it is likely to respond in specific circumstances. I fully appreciate that no amount of compensation could make good the loss of the daughter of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but those Acts apply in a number of cases of injury.
I wish, however, to focus on a third piece of legislation, which is of critical importance. It is legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is hoping that the House will amend, preferably soon. I refer to the Dogs Act 1871, which applies throughout Great Britain. Under that Act, anyone can complain to a court—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hope that the Minister will not refer to future legislation in an Adjournment debate. I was a little concerned about that: I am listening very carefully.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that indication. With your permission, I have it in mind to outline not very detailed proposals of the legislative kind but broad trends of policy.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the Minister will not do that. That would be in breach of our Standing Orders, and I could not allow him to do that.

Mr. Hogg: May we see how far I can go, Madam Deputy Speaker? I should like to give an indication of what we have in mind, without in any way breaching the rules of order. Perhaps we can inch along on this matter, and you will tell me if I have gone too far.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to all that has been said throughout the debate and I shall continue to do that. The Minister can rest assured that I will call him to order immediately he gets close to the mark.

Mr. Hogg: You are, as ever, most gracious in these matters, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall do my best not to go too far.
Let us examine the foundations of the statute. The principal legislation is the Dogs Act 1871. Under that measure, anyone can complain to a court that a dog is dangerous, or simply report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that the dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control, it can make an order for the dog to be controlled or destroyed. So far so good, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is descriptive only of the present legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is the future that I am concerned with.

Mr. Hogg: I, too, am concerned with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I hope that we can proceed in a state of accord.
As the House knows, the Home Secretary has decided that the powers available to the court on a complaint under the Dogs Act should perhaps be extended and the penalties enhanced. That is a general statement of intent. The problem is that, as the Act stands, if a dog is to be destroyed, that must be carried out by the owner, who may decline to carry out the order. The only penalty currently available for that is a fine off £1 a day. In 1871, that fine was considerable. It is manifestly not considerable today.
One could take the view that that was a gap in the law. The Home Secretary is also minded to think that it is a gap in the law and, speaking generally and without, as it were, expressing a precise view on how the legislation should be changed, one way to deal with such a problem might be to give the court power to designate a third party as the person to carry out the destruction order.
Thus it would be possible under such an approach—not that I am proposing legislation on this occasion—for a court to designate, say, an officer of police to carry out the destruction order. That would avoid the problem that can arise under the present legislation. If one were to adopt that approach, it would ensure that dogs which needed to be put down were put down.
I have mentioned that the fine is a problem. There is clearly a case for the House to consider whether we should change the law to a degree so that failure to comply with an order to control a dog or hand it over to be destroyed should be an offence carrying a significant penalty, certainly a penalty greater than £1 a day. A figure that might occur to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would be a fine of up to level 3 in the standard scale, which is £400. That is a thought that might occur to the House in considering possible approaches to legislation of this kind. If one wanted to do that, a penalty under the 1871 Act would make prosecution under the Act more worth while and greatly enhance the enforcement of the Act.
There is another possibility which I think would attract the hon. Member for Dundee, East. It is that there is no power under the 1871 Act for the court to prohibit a person from owning a dog in future for a specified period. Plainly, where there has been a finding under section 2 of the 1871 Act, there is a case for saying that a court should have the additional power to make an order disqualifying an owner from having custody of a dog for such a period as the court thinks fit. One would need to refer to the parliamentary answer by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to see exactly what he had in mind, because I must not say in the course of the debate what he had in mind. If that is what he had in mind, it would be a


completely new power under the Act. Its effect would be to ensure that dangerous dogs which are not or cannot be controlled are destroyed.
Owners who failed to observe an order of the court would receive a substantial fine and the court would have the additional ability to ban such a person from having custody of a dog. If at some stage the House gave the court the ability to ban a person from possessing a dog in future, the House would have to consider what penalties should be imposed in the event of the person failing to comply with the disqualification order. I propose no legislation, because I am not permitted to do so. However, the House might well think that a level 5 penalty, which is presently set at a maximum of £2,000, might be appropriate.
Somebody who refuses to comply with an order to control his dog or hand it over for destruction may be banned. It follows that anybody who tries in such circumstances to resist the operation of the Act would, if the court so decided, become liable for the £2,000 fine or whatever the level 5 fine might be at the time. That would be a considerable extension of the court's powers under the 1871 Act.
In future, the House might well consider giving to the courts the power to ban somebody from possessing a dog, and it might also give the court a power to designate a third party to carry out a destruction order. The House might well decide that it wanted to increase the fine for findings under section 2 of the 1871 Act to a scale 3 fine. If the House decided on such a course of action it would undoubtedly constitute an important enhancement of the legislative powers that are available. If the House wanted to make the changes that I have contemplated in respect of the Dogs Act 1871, there would be a similar desire for a change in the legislation in Scotland. I suspect that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would wish to see that, and no doubt other hon. Members would also like to see it.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the whole House would come to the view that the simple and effective changes to the Dogs Act that I have contemplated would be an appropriate response to the problem. I hope that, if this approach proves attractive to the hon. Member for Dundee, East and to the House, changes could be implemented as speedily as the House can manage. It would be good if a suitable legislative opportunity could be found to give the House an opportunity to contemplate the kind of changes that I have envisaged.
I cannot pretend to the House that the tragic circumstances which have brought about the debate and which helped to bring about our view of the dog legislation can be prevented by changes in legislation, however sweeping. If there is one lesson to be learned from our review of the legislation in England and Wales it is that the responsibility for the control of dogs rests much more on their owners than upon the framework of law.
The House can take legislative steps to control dogs, like anything else, but the effectiveness of those steps in practice depends very largely on how people respond to their responsibilities. It is therefore important to ensure that any legislative changes which we make this time are measured, sensible and well aimed. That is why I was quarrelling with the hon. Gentleman. It is not that I think

that this matter is unimportant; it is that I am concerned that we should introduce only changes which are viable and not pomote changes which are simply unsustainable.

Mr. McAllion: What I fail to understand is that the Minister qualified many of the other suggestions that have been made by people outside the House as unviable, and particularly suggested that the prohibition of certain species was unviable because of the cross-breed problem. How does that apply to the suggestion that American pit bull terriers should be muzzled in public? How does that come into the problem of the cross-breeds in that respect?

Mr. Hogg: This is a slightly different point. If one is to have a prohibition order, one has in statutory terms to define the dog to which that order applies. For the purpose of an importation prohibition order, or for that matter a possession prohibition order, one cannot define the dog other than by reference to breed. One cannot simply say that everybody is prohibited from possessing a ferocious dog. One can say that, when a ferocious dog is kept in particular circumstances, an offence is committed. One cannot say that no ferocious dog shall be imported into the United Kingdom, because that is an unenforceable piece of legislation. One can say that Latin American pit bull terriers cannot be imported into the United Kingdom.
I do not want to go back to what I was doing previously with regard to the hon. Gentleman, but what is an American pit bull terrier? That is a serious question. Obviously, a pure-bred American pit bull terrier is an American pit bull terrier, but what about a half-breed or a cross-breed? How does one recognise a dog which has in it a sufficient quantity of Amerian pit bull terrier genes to give it the characteristics of an American pit bull terrier but also has different parentage? It loses the definitional character, and therefore the prohibition cannot operate because it is nonsense if one focuses on breeds.
It is the point about the 1847 Act that is troubling the hon. Gentleman. That Act provides in effect that where one has a ferocious animal one has to do certain things: for example, keep it on a leash and keep a muzzle on it. The question is: what is a ferocious animal? That is not a definitional question; that is a question of fact.
I think it is possible, although I do not express a definite view on this, that the courts would be prepared to say that an American pit bull terrier, having regard to its pedigree and essential characteristics, was per se a ferocious animal. I do not think that such a finding would be applied to many dogs, but it might be applied to an American pit bull terrier.
With that exception, one has to apply the test in the context of any dog that is capable of falling within it. Any dog is capable of being ferocious. Therefore, under the 1847 Act, I think it is true that a very small number of a breed may per se be ferocious, otherwise one is looking at the characteristics of the particular dog in respect of which the summons is issued.
If the hon. Gentleman will reflect on it he will see why, on the one hand, it is impossible to prohibit possession and importation by way of breed, while on the other it is possible to express the view that perhaps American pit bull terriers would per se fall within the 1847 legislation.
The point that I am making, therefore, is that it is essential that any legislative changes we make should be measured, sensible and well aimed. They must also, incidentally, command the support of the public and not


act against the large numbers of dog owners whose animals present no nuisance and therefore no threat. We think that the kind of changes—not going into detail, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is sailing very close to the wind.

Mr. Hogg: I know, but fortunately I am tacking, so I am not getting that close.
We think that the proposals which my right hon. Friend outlined yesterday meet these criteria. Courts are familiar with the 1871 Act, and it may well be that the House will wish to give the courts the powers and discretion that they require. I recommend that approach to the House. Those who have a dog which is uncontrolled and has become dangerous, whether it be a rottweiler, a doberman, an alsatian, a terrier or the indefinable mongrel that bit me twice last year, should be in no doubt that they will be dealt with by the courts. In such circumstances their dog could be destroyed and they could be banned from owning another.
I very much hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will feel that this is the proper way forward.

Itinerants

Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone): I am very grateful to have the opportunity to raise in the House tonight the subject of the control of itinerants as it is one of major importance not only to my own constituents but to the constituents of many hon. Members. It comes up time and time again in the House.
I am also very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being available to reply to this debate. I listened with increasing admiration to the very thorough and comprehensive reply which he gave to the previous debate. I am indeed most grateful to him that after such a magnificent coverage of just about every aspect of the dog problem he should now turn his attention so willingly and readily to a completely different problem. He will, I hope, not suffer from a feeling of déjà vu if I turn briefly to the subject of dogs later in this speech because, unbelievably, since it has come up so often in our deliberations this week, there are also considerable implications concerning the control of dogs and illegal acts connected with them in respect of itinerants.
In looking at the problem of gipsies I should like to look first at the existing state of legislation. I would not dream of proposing any changes to legislation or even of speculating on possible changes since I am quite sure that I could not tack as subtly as my hon. Friend the Minister. But existing legislation is extremely relevant because it is one of the sources of frustration on the part of law-abiding residents who see a situation in which one law appears to apply to the settled population and another to the itinerant population.
I am also fully aware that my hon. Friend the Minister will not be able to respond in any detail to some of the criticisms that I will make, not only of existing legislation but of the way that it is enforced, because this is more properly the concern of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But, although the Minister will not be able to respond to that part of my speech which strictly concerns planning legislation and enforcement, I hope that he will be able to pass on the concerns that I express to his right hon. Friend. I would ask him if he would deal with the points that I shall be raising on public order, which more nearly concern him.
The problems of public order and the problem of frustration among the law-abiding community would not arise at all if we had a proper system of planning and enforcement and a proper set of planning rules which would make it possible to control the itinerant population.
First, we have to look at the size of the problem. I have attended many debates in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the problem of those who choose an itinerant way of life or who settle for long periods in illegal encampments and move on only when obliged to do so, or for reasons of their own. A count of gipsy caravans was carried out by the environmental health officer in Maidstone—on whose behalf I am largely raising this thorny problem—in January, so it is already out of date. Even then, there were 14 unauthorised caravans in the borough, 11 of which were in my constituency. In all those cases, the borough council was, and is still, taking action to resolve the breach of control.


There are in addition 35 caravans in authorised council-operated sites in the borough and 76 caravans on privately operated authorised sites.
Of those authorised council encampments, 21 are at the village of Marden, and a further 14 at Ulcombe. That is a large count for a geographically small constituency. Marden parish council is now updating its figures, together with other parish councils, with a view to being able to assess the problem more accurately. The recent outbreak of illegal encampments at Marden has caused considerable problems of enforcement and public order. Planning enforcement is a lengthy process. Before taking enforcement action, the local authority is encouraged by the Secretary of State to resolve the problem by negotiation or at least to invite planning applications to be submitted. If this does not resolve the problem, an enforcement notice can be issued. Not only is it a long time before the notices can be issued, but if an appeal is exercised, it can easily be several years before the notice becomes effective, even if the appeal is ultimately dismissed.
Residents at Marden will be told that it could be several years before enforcement can be carried out. If my hon. Friend the Minister were to visit Marden to see the incredible situation that has developed, he would not find it easy to say that it is just and right, even if it is normal legal practice, for it to take several years to rectify such a situation.
Stop notice procedure is available where a local planning authority feels that the normal time scale embodied in an enforcement action is unacceptable, but such a procedure is not permissible or applicable in connection with a caravan that is used solely as a place of residence. The normal problems of enforcement action are compounded when dealing with gipsies, simply because Government advice is quite clear: the gipsies who have resided in the local area should receive planning permission unless there are compelling planning objections. Normal policy objections to the development of the countryside that would be applied to non-gipsies are seldom sufficient to resist proposals for gipsy caravans. Parallel action under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 provides a more expeditious way to deal with the problem in that immediate prosecution for the stationing of the caravan without a site licence is possible, but it seldom provides an effective solution as magistrates will inevitably dismiss a case or impose a minimum fine pending resolution of the planning permission. The will of the police to interfere where there are public order problems at gipsy sites and the will of the magistrates to enforce planning procedures and impose the necessarily deterrent fines are minimal. Therefore, at least part of the planning problem spills over into the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister.
In layman's language, the planning situation is simple. Anybody can encamp himself illegally on any available land. He can then, unbelievable though it is, get himself connected up to local services—electricity and water—and can have his rubbish collected. When the council then tries to evict him, it is faced with a lengthy process of inordinate delay. As a result, resentment builds up in the law-abiding community and this is much intensified where there is

continued and blatant bad behaviour, lawlessness and acts of public disorder by the itinerants. In the village of Marden, some of my constituents have been assaulted.
We have a rather romantic view of gipsies. We think of people travelling in a painted caravan, telling fortunes and selling heather. The reality of the people encamped illegally is that they do not use their caravans purely for residential purposes. They are also carrying out a trade, quite often an illegal one, in the area surrounding the encampment. Breaking up of metal, tinkers' business and other such trades are frequently practised. They all cause a great deal of mess, particularly where there are no proper arrangements for disposal of sewage from the caravans or proper rubbish disposal. There is no proper arrangement for disposal of trade waste, which builds up and is extremely detrimental to the environment, particularly to a beautiful part of Kent.
Even where they are not directly responsible for assaults on the population, the behaviour of itinerants is a problem. Dogs and cats regularly disappear from nearby areas to these encampments. My distinguished predecessor, Sir John Wells, lost a pair of much-loved and valuable dogs about a year ago. They were not discovered by the police, who are alleged not to have shown a great deal of interest, nor by any official of the local council calling in to check up on planning procedures, because they do not do much of that. They were seen by a particularly alert constituent, who, walking past the encampment one day, noticed two dogs that were cleaner and fitter not only than the other dogs but the occupants. He decided that a discordant note was being struck and reported the matter to the police. I am pleased to say that the police took action and managed to restore the dogs to their owner. Others are not so lucky.
Thefts of caravans often occur when these people move in, and it is not difficult to make the connection. This causes a great deal of resentment and that is where the question of order and control arises. Itinerancy in our society appears to be rising and more and more designated sites are being made available. There are obviously considerable social arguments about allowing itinerancy to escalate to too great a scale. It is bad for the education of the children of itinerants, which is greatly disrupted. It is bad for good social order because, on the whole, itinerants are resented by the law-abiding population. It is bad for law enforcement, because these people are seen to be blatantly getting away with it, as it were. It is extremely bad in promoting civil obedience in terms of planning orders when it is obvious that one section of the population appears to be especially favourably treated and appears also to be immune from lawful procedures.
Nevertheless, itinerancy is growing, and as it grows so we are having problems of public order and control. We have assaults in Marden. We have assaults elsewhere. We have reported threats in Hunton. We have mess and blatant disregard of the law in Shenley Park. For how long does my hon. Friend the Minister expect the law-abiding and settled population to continue tolerating this behaviour without being led to feel that they must take the law into their own hands or that the law is letting them down so entirely badly that it is not worth obeying and that instead it is worth trying to find some way round it?
I have never yet heard of an illegal encampment being moved on swiftly and legally. The two actions do not go together. If an encampment is to be moved legally, the


move will take years before it is completed. If it is to be moved swiftly, assuredly the pressure will not be legal. That is not a happy situation. Indeed, I believe it to be an extremely dangerous one, and one that could develop further. Meanwhile, even if my law-abiding constituents, and my extremely law-abiding villagers of Marden, are prepared patiently to wait for the law to sort out this problem, is it fair that they should have to do so? Surely it is time, even under the existing law, for us to find a way of controlling the menace before it becomes a greater one, when it will no longer be so easy to bring it within the laws that apply to the rest of civilised Britain.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) has made a powerful case for the position of her constituents in Marden. Essentially she has raised two matters. The first is the application of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. Secondly, she has raised the more general question of itinerants. I shall deal first with section 39. I think that it will be helpful if I summarise the legislation that is currently in place.
Broadly speaking, if a senior police officer present at the scene has reason to believe that two or more people have entered land as trespassers and are intending to reside there and that the occupier of the land has taken reasonable steps to ask them to leave, he may direct the trespassers to leave the land in any of the following circumstances: where damage has been caused to the property on the land, where the trespassers have used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier or his representative, or where—I suspect that this is commonplace in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend—12 or more vehicles have been brought on to the land. For the purposes of this part of the 1986 Act, a caravan is deemed to be a vehicle.
Section 39 was introduced into the 1986 legislation while it was passing through Parliament to provide criminal sanctions against a type of aggravated trespass that landowners suffered in the Stonehenge area at the time of the summer solstice. It has undoubtedly been used by the police when they have been dealing with gipsies. It was not intended to be used against gipsies, but if gipsies fall within the circumstances described in section 39 they can be dealt with under the Act. The Act provides the police with a power but it does not impose a duty. When we come to operational decisions, we are talking about the duties of the chief constable and those of his officers who are accountable to him.
If my hon. Friend's constituents believe that the provisions under section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986 are not being used in the way that she wishes them to be used, they should make representations to the chief

constable for a more expeditious use of the powers that currently exist. We intend shortly to undertake a review of a number of sections of the Public Order Act 1986, including section 39, to evaluate how they are working. Inevitably we will consider the remarks which my hon. Friend has made so clearly in this debate. In essence, the legislation in place is sufficient to meet the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone is troubled by the fact that the police officers concerned do not act sufficiently expeditiously. If she will forgive me saying this, that is an operational matter for the police in her county, rather than for the Home Office.

Miss Widdecombe: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. The local police force has made excellent efforts and I in no way want to criticise it. However, the problems which occur happen on the spur of the moment. The police must then come back after some time to sort out exactly what has happened. It is not like a public order offence or a demonstration where there is a static situation. These are isolated incidents which are very difficult to police.

Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's analysis of the difficulties. She is right. However, I must re-emphasise that there is a distinction between the function of the Home Office and that of the police. We are considering an operational policing matter which is not within the authority of the Home Office. Consequently my hon. Friend must make it plain to her local police officers—and knowing my hon. Friend I rather suspect that she has done this—and in particular to the chief constable, that the matter is a very serious social problem and that the present legislation is appropriate to be used in those circumstances and should be invoked expeditiously.
I accept the point that the policing consequences are difficult in the sense that the incidents are isolated and may give rise to public disorder problems. Therefore, the police face implementation problems. However, that does not alter the fact that it is essentially a policing problem. I am afraid that I do not think that I can usefully go much further than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone has been very generous to me—quite unusually so perhaps. She recognises my shortcomings in the sense that the broader issues which could have been debated are more particularly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. She has given me the opportunity, for which I am much indebted, to reply exclusively on section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986. I hope that she does not think that I am discourteous when I say that she might feel that I would not bring a great deal of expert knowledge to bear on the rest of the points that she so helpfully raised. However, I promise that I will ensure that her comments about Marden and her constituents are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Madrid Summit

Mr. Nigel Spearing: In this Adjournment debate I want to raise the subject of the scrutiny of European Community business and the Madrid summit. It is a little ironic that I am raising this subject today of all days. The polling booths in the European elections are just about coming to the end of their day's business to elect to the European Parliament Members who will have an influence on legislation from the European Community.
This Parliament also has influence on such legislation through the Council of Ministers and the Ministers we send to Brussels to comment on the Commission's proposals and finally decide what those legislative proposals should be either through unanimity or by qualified majority. The debate is taking place at relatively short notice—only an hour or so. I thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for coming here at some personal inconvenience. I know that he will relay to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House my concerns that have arisen exactly today.
I regret very much the need for the debate. The Select Committee on European Legislation and other people have held discussions with the Lord President on the matter. However, in view of the Lord President's statement on next week's business, I was obliged to ask for a debate. I emphasise that I had the support of the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in my questions to the Lord President earlier today—also, I hope, when I raised the matter under Standing Order No. 20 and in this rare third Adjournment debate.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee had been considering the matter in some detail in the expectation that there would be a debate before the Madrid summit the week after next, particularly on the Delors report on economic and monetary union. I had been confident that after pressure from two Committees and the precedents that have been set there would be a debate before that very important meeting of the European Council. However, at approximately 3.45 this afternoon the Leader of the House said that there would not be a debate—that no business next week related to that particularly important meeting.
Parliament provides procedures such as Standing Order 20 and Adjournment debates for the raising of grievances. I have therefore used those procedures. They are, as it were, fire extinguishers or alarm bells that are used when other people light a fire. The Government have certainly lit a fire today, not perhaps by an act of commission but by an act of omission in not arranging for a debate to take place next week on this very important matter. Some eyebrows may be raised when the Chairman of a Select Committee says that he finds it necessary to use these procedures, but I am sure that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee will agree with what I hope is a measured comment: there was every expectation that such a debate would take place.
I notice that the Lord President of the Council has arrived. I was not necessarily expecting him to be here. He could have read what I intend to say. Nevertheless, in view of his presence, I have to thank him for coming and I hope that what I have to say to him will not be too unexpected. I know that he has certain considerations to bear in mind, but the considerations that I intend to put to him tonight

relate to the Parliament of which he is the Leader and not necessarily to him in his role as Lord President of the Council. I have pointed out on many occasions in the past that I am not sure that the habit of successive Governments in combining those posts is the happiest of habits. Sometimes it means that the same person has to balance conflicting interests. In our democracy, although it is a matter of contention on some occasions, split interests or conflicting interests should be avoided as far as possible.
There are many points of view about the European Economic Community. There are different points of view about the merits of our membership of the EEC, about the conditions under which we joined it, about whether we joined it correctly, the holding of referendums, and all the rest. On one thing, however, there is absolute agreement: that this Parliament must play some part in EEC legislation. This country is subject by treaty to EEC legislation, particularly legislation that is brought about by a weighted majority vote, perhaps against the inclinations of any British Government or the House. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. There is no difference in principle between the right hon. Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and myself.
How is that influence to be wielded? How should draft legislation be considered, and how will influence be exerted on those who will ultimately decide it? Those questions have echoed down the ages, from the 16th century and Simon de Montfort, and along the corridor between the other place and this House. At the heart of our country's democracy is the extent to which there shall be consultation prior to legislation.
In the Standing Order that gives my Committee its marching orders, the word that is used is "consideration". That provision is contained in a resolution passed by the House on 30 October 1980 after several years' consideration, which regularised the way in which it should operate. That is becoming increasingly important in the public gaze and in the media—and no doubt it will become increasingly important after the Madrid conference and with all that follows from it. Therefore, I shall read the resolution into the record:
That, in the opinion of this House, no Minister of the Crown should give agreement in the Council of Ministers to any proposal for European legislation which has been recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, &amp;c., for consideration by the House before the House has given it that consideration unless—

(a) that Committee has indicated that agreement need not be withheld, or
(b) the Minister concerned decides that for special reasons agreement should not be withheld;

and in the latter case the Minister should, at the first opportunity thereafter, explain the reasons for his decision to the House."—[Official Report, 30 October 1980; Vol. 991, c. 838.]
In general, the operation of that resolution is relatively smooth. The problems of timing are neither the making of the Government nor of the House. However, problems occasionally arise and administrative slips occur in the best-run offices. Usually they are recognised as such and are smoothed out.
However, I regret to say that—subject to any subsequent correspondence—the spirit of that resolution has been breached. I refer to the Government reply to the "First Special Report, Session 1983–84", HC 527, when the then Leader of the House wrote, on page xxv of HC 400:


It is the Government's practice that debates on European documents should be held as far in advance as is practicable of the expected adoption of the proposal concerned. It is desirable that this should be at the point when the voice of the House can be most influential. As a general rule, this will normally be early rather than late in the life of a proposal. The Committee rightly notes that the selection of an optimum time for debates is very much a matter of judgment. The Government fully accept the Committee's view that, when making this judgment, it should be the rule always to err on the side of an early debate, and Departments will be instructed accordingly.
I am glad that the Leader of the House reinforced that general sentiment in correspondence with the Committee.
In principle, there is no dissent from that general point. Therefore, the question must be asked whether there is any reason why the spirit of the resolution, and the spirit and terms of that letter and of a subsequent letter from the Leader of the House, should not apply to the particularly important document that will be tabled at the Madrid summit—the Delors report on European monetary union.
I wish for a moment to be a devil's advocate and express what I would say if I were the Lord President or the Economic Secretary. I would say that it is not yet a matter for legislation. It is a report about feasibility—a very important matter. On the other hand, that report suggests that future legislation and future treaty change will be possible. There may not be a decision on Monday, Tuesday or on Wednesday week, but there will certainly be consideration, conceivably in principle. I might also ask whether the document comes within the ambit of the strict legality of the wording of the resolution on 30 October. One could argue that it does not. But if we are concerned about the principle of consultation before legislation and before important meetings which we all know will take place, it surely must, bearing in mind the words of the former Leader of the House and the confirmation of at least the principle by the present Leader of the House in current circumstances.
I also sent a letter to the Leader of the House—which I do not think he was surprised to receive—saying that there must have been some specific decision not to have this debate. It was not a matter of forgetful omission but an absolute decision not to do so.
I now turn to the question of timetable recommendation. The Scrutiny Committee usually produces a report once a week. We sat on 10 May, and what a bumper meeting it was. We dealt with broadcasting; procurement by water, energy and transport; foreign language training—the Lingua programme; freedom of movement and rights of residence; economic and monetary union; and irradiation of foodstuffs. That was rather a heavy week. I shall quote the final paragraph on the Delors document on economic and monetary union which we considered raises questions of legal and political importance and recommended it for further consideration by the House. I shall read out the last paragraph on page xii of that report. I had better read the lot. It states:
The Committee notes that the Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union
—that is Mr. Delors' committee—
was entrusted by the European Council with the task of studying and proposing stages leading towards an economic and monetary union and that its report concluded that Treaty amendment would be necessary to effect the transfer of decision-making powers from Member States to new or existing Community institutions to implement the latter two stages of its conception of economic and monetary union. It also notes that the Prime Minister has stated that the United Kingdom cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty that is

implied in the report since economic and monetary union as spelt out in the report would in effect require political union, a United States of Europe, which is not, in her view, on the agenda now or for the foreseeable future, and that the Prime Minister has also stated that the Government does not believe that there should be further Treaty amendment as proposed by the report. Accordingly, in view of the evident legal and political importance of the report and the clear conflict between its proposals and the Government's views, the Committee recommends it for further consideration by the House. It considers that this debate should be held in good time before the European Council on 26–27 June, when the report is expected to be discussed by the Heads of Government.
We know from the press that many Heads of Government may go along with Mr. Delors' proposals. There may be changes in the last few days and it may be that there will not be a consensus. However, some people will go along with the statement made by the Government and the Prime Minister. Others—I will not name them since we know who they are and they have been expressing their views in print recently—may not go along with the statement. However, it is right and proper for the Government to seek to obtain support or otherwise—I am sure that they would receive support—for their view and expose it to debate. In that way when the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Paymaster General go to subsequent meetings they would have the view of the House. Surely that would strengthen their arm—or weaken it—and at least there would have been some consultation and consideration.
Such consultation was expected by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. Last week it had before it the Governor of the Bank of England who is a signatory to the report. We are not sure whether he was signing on the principles of the mechanics or the objectives. However, he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were both witnesses before the Committee. I have been told by the Chairman of the Committee that it is preparing a manuscript report to be available early next week in the expectation that a debate will take place.
Some people may say that we can find out what was said by reading the press. However, surely the idea of Select Committees—certainly departmental Select Committees—is that they are able to sort out and set out for the House in a reasonable and readable way the views and evidence provided by prestigious and well-informed persons. Unless one has had an opportunity to listen to what is going on, one will not know because no papers will be available for information other than through the Committee.
It is no use having material if it cannot be used in time for the deliberations that will take place. A great deal has been written and discussed recently about the departmental Select Committees. However, they are unable to be effective prior to the debate in Madrid.
The debate in Madrid is not public. That is not a criticism. I simply want to place that on record. In fact, its agenda is not known. During Question Time yesterday the Foreign Secretary was not very forthcoming on its full extent. We know that the Delors report will be discussed; as will matters relating to an equally contentious document on the social charter, on which there are different views. We are not having a debate on that but it is different from the document commisioned by the Heads of Government.
Matters may be raised by the Presidency about which we know nothing. I am not suggesting that the Leader of


the House should hold a debate on a speculative basis but I am throwing in some of the other problems we have in respect of scrutiny. The Presidency has an entire department within the EEC and is able to select matters at will. A great deal of initiative is left to the Presidency. We may hear from the Prime Minister on her return that this, that or the other has been discussed and that decisions of principle have been taken. We may not know that such matters were being discussed and, therefore, could not debate them even if we wanted to.
Another general point that has arisen in the past week relates to the time and the period of debate. Exactly a week ago I asked the Leader of the House to consider an exemption to the one-and-a-half hour rule in respect of a debate due to take place on Tuesday on broadcasting rules for television, which the Commission proposes should apply to the EC—rules that will be resolved in the end by majority vote. I anticipated that many people would wish to speak in that debate. It started just after one o'clock early on Wednesday morning and lasted until 2.37 am.
Despite the late hour and the fact that the speeches were relatively brief and to the point, there was no time for the Minister to reply. Various matters were raised in the course of the debate on which the Minister could not comment. I do not complain about the choice of day because the matter is being discussed at this minute, so it had to be dealt with when it was. But the House was constrained by the fact that the debate was limited to an hour and a half. I put it to the House and to the Leader of the House—he has heard it before but I cannot over-emphasise it—the one-and-a-half hour limit was originally the time designated for the consideration of British secondary statutory instruments. We are talking about super-primary legislation.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the House talk about the need for greater scrutiny and better procedures, a matter with which many people are now grappling. The Procedure Committee is having a go at it, the Leader of the House and I are having fruitful conversations on it and there is proper correspondence between the Scrutiny Committee and the Leader of the House. All that is helpful, but there are certain things that should and could happen now which need no change in the Standing Orders, simply the use of the Government's powers and responsibilities to Parliament.
We do not just have a Government to produce legislation on the basis of one philosophy or another, and I hope that I am making a constitutional rather than a party speech. Every Government have a responsibility to parliamentary democracy. We know just how much the Prime Minister is wedded to that. She is always telling us how important it is, particularly in relation to the European Community. There is a moral and a constitutional obligation on the Government, as well as on the Leader of the House, who has particular concerns in this matter, not only to see that parliamentary democracy and representative government go on, but are seen to go on. But in respect of EC legislation, alas, that is not yet the case.
That matter does not relate simply to this Government. My esteemed predecessor, Mr. John Davies, a Cabinet Member and the first Chairman of the Select Committee of which I have the honour to be Chairman, got into dead

trouble with the Labour Government of the day, or they got into dead trouble because of what he was doing. On one occasion, he had to get all the members of his Committee to put down an early-day motion, headed by a former Cabinet Minister and well-respected gentleman who had strong views in one direction about the European Community—perfectly honourable and right ones. He had clashes with the Government, I think in good spirit, but in the spirit of parliamentary democracy.
I hope that I have not gone over the top today but rather have used those procedures which parliamentary democracy provides—which have ancient origins and which are there to be used on occasions—to draw attention to the matter, particularly to those who will read what we say, as well as the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see here, and the Economic Secretary, who has been put to some personal inconvenience to be present.
I do not expect a long reply because the Minister has had only short notice, but the debate has illustrated the profound dilemmas that now confront Parliament and Government in the practice of representative democracy and in making sure that conversations on major matters, such as economic and monetary union, can be read about in the press in yards of articles, or in the form of speculation, argument or debate on the radio, of which we have heard quite a lot and will hear even more after the election results on Sunday. It may have some influence on what appears in the papers on the summit. But for Parliament not to be able to discuss such matters even on Adjournment debates—I am not asking for a substantive or amendable motion—would be seen as something strange by people outside.
As the former Leader of the House, Lord St. John of Fawsley, often told us, it is not this place that is the mother of Parliaments, but Britain. That this Parliament is unable to discuss major matters of European and constitutional issue prior to our representatives going to Europe to speak on our behalf would be judged by any constitutional textbook as something that should not be tolerated—I fear that history will judge it so.
I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will make a short reply; I do not expect a long one. The Lord President has been present and I know that he will draw this speech to the attention of others. There is yet time for something to be done. It has been known for business to be changed and there are other people who may exercise an influence—sometimes they are described as "the usual channels".
I hope that I have used the procedures of the House correctly. Unfortunately, it has been necessary for such a person as myself, with the backing of the Chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, to exercise those procedures. I believe that I have done so in the spirit of parliamentary democracy and I look for a response in exactly the same fashion.

The Economic Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): First, I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his characteristic courtesy in giving me the maximum possible notice of his intention to raise this matter in the third Adjournment debate.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his Committee on the vigilance with which they pursue the scrutiny of the


legislation that comes before this House or is in prospect and on the diligence with which they seek to ensure the House can scrutinise such legislation.
I was intending to assure the hon. Gentleman that I would convey to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the contents of his speech. As it is, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend has heard the cogent and powerful arguments that he has deployed. He knows that my right hon. Friend will consider them seriously. The fact that my right hon. Friend is here tonight is an indication of the importance he attaches to the hon. Gentleman, to

his Committee and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee and its Chairman who, I understand, joined with the hon. Gentleman in the points he raised tonight.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not giving a fuller and more substantive reply, but I believe that it is more important that such matters are considered by the Leader of the House and those associated with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Ten o'clock.